Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. That is right. There are a number of things that can be done. There is no reason it can't be done on a bipartisan basis. I left a hearing in the Government Affairs Committee, where we talked about regulations and their impact on the economy. Today, the cost of regulations to the economy--in particular, small businesses--is about $1.75 trillion. That is more than the IRS collects in income taxes. There were both Democrats and Republicans talking about proposals and who are concerned about the administration's continued regulations. The President said some of the right things, but there are more regulations that have a bigger impact. In Washington, it is tough to get this under control without changing the law, in my view. We need to have a better process in the agencies to force them to look at cost-benefit analyses and force them to use the least-cost burdensome alternatives. I talked about legislation in that area today, as did Democrats and Republicans alike. There are things we have to do. Regarding the Senator's point about the impact of the debt and deficit on the job front, the Senator is right. The poll he talked about indicated that 65 percent of Americans think the debt and deficit is a major factor in high unemployment. They are right. The study the Senator talked about said if the debt gets past 90 percent, it will cost our economy about a million jobs. We are now at about 100 percent, and it will be 105 percent in 2012--next year. This is what is happening. We are going into that period where our debt is bigger than our whole economy. This study, by the way, is based on looking at countries all around the world, which will have gone through this experience, including countries in Europe that are going through it now, and seeing what the impact is on jobs. There are solutions. We talked about regulations. That is one of them. My hope is that this Senate can vote on sensible regulatory reform--and soon. The story the Senator told earlier about the oil and gas industry, we should display that all over. The recent proposed regulations from the EPA on emissions from powerplants in terms of mercury--all of us want clean air. We know you have to have regulations, but the question is, how do you regulate? These are very onerous and will have a big impact on my State. There is a study out saying it is going to result in thousands of jobs being lost, and a few powerplants being shut down, and electricity costs increasing 10, 15 percent in our State. We cannot afford that. But there is more than that. There is the Tax Code. We should, again, as a body, and the House and the administration should reform our Tax Code to make it simpler and more progrowth. It can be done. Economists across the spectrum say this current code is a mess. It doesn't work because you are encouraging businesses to make investments and allocate resources based on Tax Code-motivated interests rather than business reasons. Getting rid of these preferences and clearing out the Code, as happened in 1986, you could get more economic growth through the Tax Code reform. I think the time is here, and the President's fiscal commission recommended this when they said, how do you look at the next 20, 30 years and come up with a way to deal with the deficit and debt? Economic growth needs to be part of it. And part of it was tax reform, and making our workforce more competitive. Today, we do spend money at the Federal level on workforce development. Yet it is not spent very efficiently. There are some organizations that do it better than others. We should take their best practices and apply them generally. There are nine different agencies and departments engaged in looking at how to improve our workforce through the 21st century. It is a Federal program that, when connected with businesses, works; when it is not, it doesn't work well. There are opportunities to reform that program. It should be bipartisan. I hear from communities and businesses what is working and what is not working. Flexibility is the key. There is a lot of redtape and bureaucracy. We need to enforce our trade agreements and the international rules. Enforcement is critical. But we need to open markets to our products. Every country is engaged in opening markets for their products, workers, and service providers. We need to be more aggressive in forcing other countries to open our markets to them. If we don't, we don't have access to 95 percent of the consumers in the world. The President has said that if you were to pass these three trade agreements out there, you would create over 250,000 new jobs. Think about that. That is something we ought to do. Again it is bipartisan. Somehow we cannot seem to get these three relatively small trade agreements that we have already done through the process. We need to do that right now, because of this economic crisis we face of unemployment and long-term unemployment. This would help, in combination with a more competitive workforce. On energy, another part of our seven-point plan--and this is a jobs plan to get us back--we have to use our own resources. There is natural gas in places such as Ohio, and South Dakota and North Dakota have a lot of natural gas. We have the technology. Let's use it. We may have the greatest resources of natural gas in the world, based on geological finds. We need to use that now, and we can help us get less dependent on foreign oil. Finally, health care costs. We talked about this earlier. There are some commonsense things we can do now to get health care costs down, including stopping frivolous lawsuits, which we all pay for, through sensible medical malpractice reform. Some States do it well. It should be done on a national level to get the costs down. We should allow people to buy insurance across State lines. Several insurance companies could compete for the business. This would help get spending under control. We should reform the Tax Code, have regulatory relief, a more competitive workforce, increase jobs through exports, enforce the trade agreements, power America's economy with our own energy, and have sensible solutions to getting costs of health care down, which will help create jobs. All of these things are proposals the Senator has been working on, and I appreciate that. I ask the Senator a question. If the Senator is focused on getting at this issue, does he think we have a problem on the debt and deficit because of the lack of revenue through taxation or is it through overspending? Does he have any thoughts or suggestions as to how we deal with that?

Mr. PORTMAN. First of all, I thank my colleague from South Dakota for coming to the floor today to talk about the economy and jobs. It is clearly a top issue on the minds of folks in Ohio. And, no, the Ohio economy is still hurting. We are not creating the jobs we hoped to create. If you look at it nationally, there are now 14 million Americans who are out of work, and more than 1 million want to work but have given up looking for work. So when you look at what is going on out there, you add the 8.5 million Americans who are getting by with part-time jobs--even though they would like to work full time-- that is about 23 million Americans suffering from a lack of the full- time job they want. This unemployment issue continues to be the No. 1 issue in Ohio and nationally. We have got to address it. You talked a little bit today about some of the ways that we need to approach it, including the regulatory overreach and its impact on jobs and small businesses. But let me talk about even a deeper concern in Ohio. That is the length of time people have been out of work. The average unemployment now is 40 weeks. That is about 9 months. It is 9 months of stress, 9 months of uncertainty, 9 months of wondering how to make ends meet. This is, I am told, the worst statistic in terms of length of being unemployed that we have had since the records were kept. So it is not just about these terrible unemployment numbers, it is the fact that when have you been out that long, you lose some of your job skills, you have a gap in your resume, and it is harder to get a job. This is not what was promised, by the way. If you look at what the President and his economists promised when the stimulus was passed, they said that unemployment today would be about 6.7 percent. Instead, it is over 9 percent--9.1 percent. So it has not worked. The President has called it a bump in the road. Unfortunately, I think it is a lot more than that. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve talked about this yesterday, that he was very concerned now about some of the economic projections. He thinks we are not in as good a shape as even the projections--which were not very optimistic--show. There was 1.8 percent growth in the first quarter. At this point in the last deep recession we had, the growth was 7 percent. This chart is interesting because it shows Federal spending as a percent of the economy, which as we all know has gone up significantly, and part of that is because of the stimulus package and then the unemployment rate. Unfortunately, when you look at this, there has not been an increase in spending and a decrease in unemployment. There has been an increase in spending and an increase in unemployment. So this simple notion that you cannot spend your way to prosperity, which is a commonsense notion that most Americans agree with, has been proven to be true. Unfortunately, the stimulus package did not lead to the kind of progress the President and his team predicted. We are all paying the price for it. So, instead, we need to approach it in a different way. Again, as Senator Thune mentioned earlier, part of the answer to this is dealing with the regulations, dealing with our tax system, dealing with these high energy costs, dealing with the high health care costs, which do impact employment, getting the economy back on track through smart progrowth policies. I know the Senator from South Dakota has done a lot of thinking about how do we get out of this mess we are in, instead of the spending. But I do not know if the Senator has any thoughts about what the debt and the spending is doing to our economy. He mentioned the Rogoff and Reinhart study showing that our economy would be growing much faster than it is now but for this big overhang of spending and deficit and debt. I wonder if the Senator has additional thoughts.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 509 to the underlying bill, S. 679, which is the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. I am pleased to have Senator Tom Udall and other cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment. The aim of the amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would preserve the Senate-confirmed status of our Nation's major chief financial officers. I appreciate very much the thoughtful efforts behind the underlying legislation that is before us today. I want to particularly commend my colleague, Senator Collins, who is on the Senate floor, Senator Lieberman, as well as Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, for their hard work in being sure the nomination process is streamlined. Having been through the process twice myself, it could use some streamlining, and I know they will continue in their efforts to reduce even more some of the barriers to public service so many people feel, and I look forward to working with them. Having said that, in terms of the specific issue of the chief financial officers, I think it would be a mistake to take them out of the confirmation process and a very unwise thing to do at this point in our Nation's history when we are facing such serious financial challenges. These are, after all, the chief financial management people and the chief budget people in our agencies and departments. We need them right now to be at the highest level possible. Some of my colleagues will recall the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 created or consolidated the financial or executive positions across 23 Federal agencies. It specifically requires Senate confirmation for the 16 most important departmental CFO positions, as well as for the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management in the Office of Management and Budget. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I worked closely with that individual. It also, by separate law, requires Senate confirmation of the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force who serve as Comptrollers for those military services. In its current form, the legislation before us today would eliminate the statutory requirement that those positions be Senate confirmed. The basic principle behind the CFO Act of 1990 is that an agency's top financial officer should be a key influential figure in the agency's top management. I believe that principle is more true and urgent today than ever. With our Federal deficits expected to reach over $1.4 trillion this year, diligent and skillful stewardship of taxpayer dollars is more critical than ever, and these CFOs are at the front lines of that effort. The nominations reform bill now pending would weaken the institutional accountability that is currently in law by denying the Senate a say and by lowering the stature of these individuals in their departments. The practical importance of Senate confirmation is that it gives individuals the stature and credibility they often need to do their jobs effectively. I don't believe we want to have a situation in which, for example, the Energy Department's Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is a Senate-confirmed appointee. Yet the CFO down the hall--who is supposed to be working with this person on his budget, and, frankly, directing this person in terms of financial management--is not a Senate-confirmed individual or the Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science would be a Senate-confirmed appointee but not the Interior CFO down the hall. When I served as the Director of OMB, I made it a point to meet regularly and personally with the CFOs of our major Cabinet departments. Their roles are critical, and we should be empowering those individuals and giving them not less but more responsibility. These officials do one of the most important jobs in our government. They are responsible for ensuring the integrity of multibillion-dollar agency budgets. I have spoken to CFOs about this amendment, and they make some very good points. In fact, earlier today I spoke to the CFO of one of the major Cabinet agencies, and he was passionate and very articulate in talking about this issue. As he told me, by law, CFOs oversee the financial management activities relating to all the programs and operations of their agencies, but they also play a lead role in preparing the agency budgets and presenting and explaining those budgets to the Congress. Often this is a more political or strategic role than many realize. During program execution, they are responsible for cost management and auditing to detect and eliminate wasteful spending, and they are closely involved in determining which programs are effective and which programs should be terminated--a tough decision in an agency. You want to be sure that person has the stature to make that argument and to be heard. These duties are at the heart of sound financial management but also budget policy and strategy, and I believe we should seek to strengthen these positions not weaken them, particularly given the situation we are in with our fiscal problems. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which simply preserves the stature of chief financial officers within Federal agencies and the accountability that is made possible through Senate advice and consent. Mr. President, I see one of my colleagues on the Senate floor, and so I yield the floor and again urge support of this amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 509.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Ohio River Way, a nonprofit, volunteer-led organization working to promote, protect and celebrate the natural beauty and recreational benefits of the Ohio River. This year is the 10th anniversary of the Annual Ohio River Way Paddlefest, the largest paddling event in the country. Each year, Paddlefest attracts more than 2,000 paddlers to Cincinnati to canoe and kayak down the Ohio River and enjoy the gorgeous natural resources in Southwest Ohio. I have been a regular participant in the canoe races as part of Paddlefest and plan to participate again this year. Due in no small part to the efforts of the Ohio River Way and the widespread popularity of Paddlefest, Greater Cincinnati has been designated as the Paddling Capital of The United States. Cincinnati enjoys a great selection of paddling-friendly waterways including the Ohio, Great Miami, Little Miami, Whitewater and Licking Rivers as well as the Four Mile, Caesar, Stonelick, O'Bannon, Indian and White Oak Creeks. Additionally, Cincinnati is home to the largest number of paddling-access points with more than 25 places to launch canoes and kayaks. I congratulate the Ohio River Way on the 10th anniversary of Paddlefest and thank Paddlefest chair Brewster Rhodes and the hardworking volunteers of the Ohio River Way for the tireless work they do each year to ensure that Paddlefest is an enjoyable experience for all participants.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Cathryn Hilker on the occasion of her 80th birthday. Cathryn is a resident of Cincinnati, OH, who has done incredible work over the last 30 years to help save the world's cheetah population. On Monday, June 20, 2011, the Cincinnati Zoo will be celebrating her 80th birthday and honoring her commitments to cheetah conservation. Cathryn's work with cheetahs began in 1980, when she brought home a young cheetah cub named Angel. Over the next 12 years, Cathryn and Angel toured the country, giving live presentations to more than 1 million people and appearing on hundreds of television news programs all around the world. Through the Cincinnati Zoo's Cat Ambassador Program, which Cathryn Hilker founded, she and her team of trainers continue to take cheetahs and other endangered cats to schools to teach students about how we can help protect endangered species. Today, because of Cathryn Hilker's commitment and the support of her Angel Fund foundation, the African cheetah has a future in the wild. Mr. President, for her commitment to cheetah conservation and her numerous contributions to the Cincinnati Zoo and the community of Cincinnati, I would like thank Cathryn Hilker and wish her a happy 80th birthday.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Tremco, Inc., for its energy efficiency efforts. Tremco, located on Green Road in Beachwood, OH, recently completed a multimillion-dollar renovation of their 40-year-old headquarters to transform it into an energy- efficient example for sustainable design. The unveiling and dedication of the facility, which will be attended by our Governor, Members of Congress, and local officials, will take place tomorrow. The renovation will allow Tremco to lower its carbon footprint, reduce gas usage by 84 percent, reduce electric usage by 43 percent, save hundreds of thousands of gallons of potable water, and reduce materials sent to landfills by 90 percent. In addition, they are hoping to receive the prestigious U.S. Green Building Council's LEED-Gold certification for their energy-efficient improvements. In today's world of rising energy prices and instability in the Middle East, I would like to commend the management and employees of Tremco, Inc., for their leadership in sustainability and congratulate them as they celebrate their newly renovated headquarters in a ``Building Green on Green'' dedication that will take place on Friday, June 17, 2011.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendments.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today we are considering a bill intended to promote economic development, and I think it is only appropriate we also talk about regulations, because, unfortunately, regulatory mandates are stifling economic growth today and keeping us from creating the jobs we so badly need. I hear it all over my State, and I am sure my colleagues do as well. Companies are saying they want to expand. They say: We have a good idea, we have a business plan that works, but we are deterred by the cost of complying with regulations. It is the redtape and also the uncertainty. It is not just the bureaucracy and redtape, it is the uncertainty about future regulations. This regulatory burden on employers, by the way, is growing, and it is already a mess. There is a recent study commissioned by the Small Business Administration and the Obama administration which estimates the annual toll now of Federal regulations on the American economy is $1.75 trillion. That is more than the IRS collects in income taxes in a year. With the unemployment rate now at 9.1 percent, we can't continue to ask businesses to spend more on redtape. Instead, we want them to invest in job creation. The current administration, unfortunately, I believe, is moving in the wrong direction on this score. We have seen a sharp increase over the past couple of years in new ``major'' or ``economically significant'' rules. These are regulations that impose a cost on the economy of $100 million or more. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Obama administration has been regulating at a pace of 84 of these new ``major'' or ``economically significant'' rules--costing the economy over $100 million--per year, including rules issued by independent agencies. By the way, that is about a 50-percent increase over the regulatory output during the Clinton administration, which was about 56 major rules per year. I was very encouraged by the words of President Obama as he introduced his January Executive order on improving regulation and regulatory review, but now we need action. We need to be sure the agencies are actually taking the measures necessary to provide regulatory relief for job creators and reducing this drag on our economy. One commonsense step we can take now is to strengthen a piece of legislation that is already in place. It is called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1995. It was bipartisan legislation. I was one of the authors of this legislation in the House of Representatives. UMRA, as it is called--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--was a bipartisan effort basically to say that regulators had to evaluate a rule's cost and find less costly alternatives before adopting one of these so-called ``major'' rules. The two amendments I am offering today would improve UMRA in a way that is entirely consistent with the principles President Obama himself laid out in his January Executive order on regulatory review. The first amendment, 418, would require agencies specifically to assess the potential effects of new regulations on job creation and to consider market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to the regulation. It would also broaden the scope of UMRA to require cost-benefit analysis of rules that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million or more. It would require agencies to adopt the least costly or least burdensome regulatory option that achieves the policy goal set out by this Congress. A commonsense idea. The second amendment, 417, would extend UMRA to independent agencies. In 1995, it was imposed upon the executive agencies but not on independent agencies. Those independent agencies have grown, and so have their regulations. This would be an agency such as the SEC--the Securities and Exchange Commission--or the CFTC or even the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has gotten a lot of attention here in the Senate in the debate over the Dodd-Frank Act. Right now they are exempted from the cost-benefit rules that govern all these other Federal agencies. Major rules issued by what is called the ``headless fourth branch'' of government are not even reviewed for cost-benefit justification by OIRA, which is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB which reviews regulations from all the other agencies. Based on information from the GAO, it now appears that between 1996 and this year independent agencies issued nearly 200 regulations that had an impact of $100 million or more on the economy. So again, over 200 regulations were not subject to review under UMRA because they were from independent agencies. There is a clear need to extend UMRA to these independent agencies. Closing this loophole is a sensible reform. By the way, this reform was endorsed by the President's own regulatory czar, Professor Cass Sunstein, who wrote in a 2002 law review article that it only made sense to require independent agencies to undertake the same cost-benefit analysis that we require of executive agencies. No major regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on American employees or on State and local governments without serious consideration of what the costs are, what the benefits are, and whether there is available a less burdensome alternative. That is what these amendments are all about. Both would move us further toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support them both. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and that I be allowed to call up amendments Nos. 417 and 418 en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the legislation that is before us--that has been before the Senate today and likely to be before the Senate tomorrow--on economic development but specifically to talk about the interest of promoting economic development and job creation. A couple of amendments I plan to offer will help give American employers some relief from regulatory mandates that are stifling economic growth and job creation. I hear all the time in Ohio--I am sure my colleagues hear it in their States--employers saying: We would like to expand and begin hiring again, but one of the concerns is that there is regulation that affects us. Almost every business I meet in Ohio--and I was in Ohio last week meeting with businesses in the area of energy, both companies that produce energy and companies that use a lot of energy, including chemical companies and steel companies in Ohio--have stories about some of the regulatory burdens that are making it more difficult to get jobs back and to get our economy back on track. By all accounts, the regulatory burden on employers is growing. A recent study commissioned by the Small Business Administration estimates that the annual toll, now, of Federal regulations on the American economy has reached $1.75 trillion. By the way, $1.75 trillion is more than the IRS collects in Federal income taxes. With the unemployment rate now at 9.1 percent and the unfortunate news we heard about last month's job numbers, it should be a wake-up call to us to focus on economic development-- specifically, how do we get businesses to do more in terms of hiring, spend less on redtape, less on bureaucracy, and reduce the regulatory burden in smart ways? The current administration has said some of the right things but actually moved in the wrong direction. We have seen a sharp increase in the last couple of years in what are deemed to be major economically significant rules. That is defined as regulations that impose a cost on the economy of $100 million or more. According to the administration's Office of Management and Budget, the current administration has been regulating at a pace of 84 major rules per year. By way of comparison, that is about a 50-percent increase over the regulatory output during the Clinton administration, which had about 56 rules per year, and an increase from the Bush administration as well. So we have seen more regulations and more significant regulations. I was encouraged to hear President Obama's words when he talked about the Executive order in January, which is entitled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' But now we need to see action. We need to see it from the administration, from individual agencies to provide real regulatory relief for job creators to be able to reduce this drag on the economy. One commonsense step we can take is to strengthen what is called the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. It was passed in 1995. It was bipartisan. I was a cosponsor in the House of Representatives. It is an effort to require Federal regulators to evaluate the cost of rules, to look at the benefits and the costs, and to look at less costly alternatives on rules. The two amendments I would like to offer over the next few days as we consider the legislation before us would improve this Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and it would reform it in ways that are entirely consistent with the principle President Obama has laid out and committed to in his Executive order on regulatory review. The first amendment would require agencies specifically to assess potential effects of new regulations on job creation--so focusing in on jobs--and to consider market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to regulation. This would broaden the scope of the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act to require cost-benefit analysis of rules that impose direct or indirect costs of $100 million a year or more. So, again, this is for major rules of $100 million or more. It would also require agencies to adopt the least costly or least burdensome option that achieves whatever policy goals have been set out by Congress. It seems to me it is a commonsense amendment. I hope we will get bipartisan support for it. The second amendment would extend the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act to so-called independent agencies which today are actually exempt from the cost-benefit rules that govern all other agencies. In 1995, we had this debate and determined at that time we would not extend the legislation to independent agencies. In the interim, independent agencies have been providing more and more rules, have put out more and more regulations, and are having a bigger and bigger impact. An example of an independent agency would be the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the CFTC, which is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These are agencies that, although independent in the executive branch, are very much involved in putting out major rules and regulations. It is sometimes called the ``headless fourth branch'' of government because their rules are not reviewed for cost-benefit analysis, even by the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, in its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, so-called OIRA. We have looked at some GAO data and put together various studies, and it appears to us that there are about 200 regulations that were issued between 1996 until today that would be deemed to have an impact of $100 million or more on the economy but were automatically excluded from the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act because they were deemed to be from independent agencies. So it is basically closing a loophole and closing this independent agency loophole, which I believe is a sensible reform. It has been endorsed by many people, including, interestingly, the current OIRA Administrator and the President's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, who, in a 2002 Law Review article, talked about the fact that this is an area where UMRA ought to be extended because, again, there were so many independent agencies that were putting out regulations impacting job creation in this country. No regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on American employers or on State and local governments without serious consideration of the costs, the benefits, and the availability of a least-burdensome alternative. Both these amendments would move us further toward that sensible goal, and I hope the leadership will allow these amendments to be offered. I think they fit well with the underlying legislation. If they are offered, I certainly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I will.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, over the past couple of days here on the Senate floor we have had a lot of discussion about domestic energy production and there have been a lot of good points made. But, frankly, it is more of a political exercise than something that is going to help the American people. If one listened to the debate, one might think there is no consensus and no way forward. I disagree with that. I think given our energy challenges, including $4 a gallon gasoline, we need an energy policy that encourages more affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy. I think we can reach a consensus on a few areas, and let me raise a couple of them today. The first is natural gas exploration and development. In my own State of Ohio, we have had exciting new developments over the past several years. Geologists have known we have big shale formations in the eastern part of the United States for years, but until recently we haven't had the drilling technologies that allowed us to tap into these huge reserves. We now have that. In Ohio, we have both the Marcellus and the Utica shale finds that, unfortunately, have not been tapped yet but have tremendous potential. Some of the oil and gas reserve estimates associated with these finds are truly amazing. For the State of Ohio alone, in one of those formations--Utica--I am told we could yield over 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. So this is a great opportunity both to be sure we have the energy we need to power our economy but also to create jobs that go into energy production. By the way, other States around us, including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and upstate New York, as an example, have even more production potential than Ohio. Already there are some Ohio counties, such as Belmont County and Jefferson County and Columbiana County, that are beginning to explore some of these finds, and we are very hopeful that in some of these counties, where there is incredibly high unemployment, we will be able to begin production soon. These counties have been hard hit by the downturn in the economy, and they can use the economic activity and the jobs that will be created by this production. Earlier this year, I visited an Ohio company that is an example of one of the industries that is going to benefit from this natural gas production. It is V&M Star. It is a company that makes piping. It is near Youngstown, OH. They just decided to expand their manufacturing capability. Why? Because they are looking at Marcellus and Utica, understanding this is going to create great opportunities for them. They are investing in our State. They are investing in jobs. They are doing it because of these finds. We have to be sure we put out the Federal policies to promote and encourage the development of these resources. In addition to using natural gas for electricity generation and as a feedstock for a lot of industries, including the chemical industry, natural gas holds incredible potential as an alternative to gas. Today, we are talking about the need to be less dependent on foreign oil, which happens to be one of the top issues on both sides of the aisle. Natural gas is a way we can do that very directly because it can be used particularly in fleets. Today, the equivalent price for a gallon of natural gas is $1.60. Think about that: as compared to $4 for gasoline, $1.60 for natural gas. The infrastructure costs create some challenges, but, again, for fleets, where there is central refueling, it makes all the sense in the world. Widespread conversion of our fleets, including our Nation's buses, garbage trucks, and utility vehicles, would help reduce demand for gasoline. America arguably has the greatest energy reserves in the world, depending on which estimate you look at. We have to find a way to responsibly tap these reserves, in a way that we can become less dependent on foreign nations for energy needs, in a way where we will stop sending so much of our wealth overseas to pay for foreign imports, particularly of crude oil. Ohio is still in the throes of an economic downturn. Today, we are at 9 percent unemployment in Ohio. Underemployment makes Ohio's situation even worse. One way to create jobs and to get Ohio back on track is by expanding, again, the use of our own resources, including natural gas. There should be a consensus on this issue. We should be promoting Federal policies to encourage the exploration and the development of these resources, and we should do it now. Another area where I think you could see some consensus on energy policy in the short term in the Senate is in the area of energy conservation and efficiency. We should both find more and use less. It is that commitment to use less that led me, last week, to introduce legislation with Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire called the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. It is S. 1000, for those who would like to check it out. It is a bipartisan bill, a targeted and achievable piece of legislation that would leverage energy efficiency investments in a number of areas, including the building and industrial sectors but also with the Federal Government. It would help consumers and the Federal Government save money on their energy bills and help industry improve the efficiency of their production processes. Again, this is an example of where we should be able to come together as Republicans and Democrats to get something done. There is widespread consensus that energy efficiency is the low-hanging fruit, a way to reduce our energy use and, again, to make America's economy more competitive. As with anything, the devil is in the details. There will be some Senators who may disagree with some of the specifics in this legislation, but, again, it is the type of bill we should be debating on the floor of this Senate. With a little hard work, I believe it is one we can ultimately get enacted into law. Instead, again, we have spent the better part of this week debating two bills; one that, in my view, would have done more harm than good, by raising taxes on certain businesses, while doing nothing to increase energy production or lower gas prices; and another one I supported that I think would do a lot of good but we knew did not have the necessary 60 votes to move forward and, therefore, we were not able to make progress this week for the American people. We have all the ingenuity, the know-how, and the resources within our own borders to be able to have the energy we need to run our economy and to improve our economy and to create jobs. I hope moving forward we can find agreement on these issues and begin to tap this great American potential. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. CARDIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I honor Ronald E. Weinberg, chair of the Cleveland State University board of trustees and a principal with Weinberg & Bell Group, a Cleveland-based private equity firm, as he is honored by Cleveland State University with its President's Medal, the university's highest nonacademic honor. The President's Medal is awarded to individuals, groups or entities whose dedication to the university is beyond question. The medal is conferred only when the honoree has made continuing and extraordinary contributions, or has provided exemplary and ongoing services that have advanced the best interests and mission of Cleveland State University. The presentation of this award will take place during a gala celebration entitled ``Radiance--CSU Realizing the Promise,'' a highlight of Cleveland State University's commencement weekend. At that time, the President's Medal will be bestowed upon Ronald E. Weinberg for his extraordinary commitment, service and contribution to Cleveland State University and for his efforts to help students achieve their goals through higher education. Mr. Weinberg was appointed to the Cleveland State Board of Trustees in 2001 and has served as chairman for the past 4 years. During his tenure, CSU has made great strides in becoming one of the country's top urban universities--the campus has been transformed with new buildings; highly credentialed faculty and researchers have enriched the learning experience; and enrollment has increased. Mr. Weinberg has generously given his time and expertise to support CSU's mission and contribute to its success. Additionally, he has financially supported many CSU initiatives. He and his wife Terri served as cochairs of the Moses Cleaveland Scholarship Dinner, and he is a platinum sponsor of Radiance. Additional recognition of Mr. Weinberg's efforts will come as the Trustees' boardroom is named for him in recognition of a generous scholarship gift. As part of Cleveland State University's Commencement Weekend celebration, Mr. Weinberg, CSU President Ronald M. Berkman and the CSU community will participate in the celebration of graduation as well as embark on a new tradition of celebrating and supporting scholarships, which are key to attracting promising students to Cleveland State University and giving them the tools to succeed. It is during this time of commencement that we can all pause to honor our new graduates on their accomplishments and wish them well as they embark on new opportunities. We are also grateful to CSU for helping to provide our young people with the tools they need to be prepared for a competitive job market and to support their communities. It is important to thank those, such as Mr. Weinberg, who have dedicated time and resources to contribute to the success of our students, an investment that is critical to Cleveland's and our Nation's future.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor 349 high school seniors in 10 northeast Ohio counties for their commendable decision to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of these 349 seniors from 116 high schools in 104 towns and cities, 98 will enter the Army, 134 will enter the Marine Corps, 42 will enter the Navy, 25 will enter the Air Force, and 50 will enter our Ohio Army National Guard. In the presence of their parents or guardians, high school counselors, military leaders, city and business leaders, all 349 are being recognized on May 12, 2011, by ``Our Community Salutes of Cleveland.'' Later this month, these young men and women will join with many of their classmates in celebration of graduation. At a time when many of their peers are looking forward to pursuing vocational training or college degrees, or are uncertain about their future, these young men and women instead have chosen to dedicate themselves to military service in defense of our country. Naturally, many may be anxious about the uncertainties that may await them as members of the Armed Forces. But, they should rest assured that the full support and resources of this Chamber, and the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead. It is thanks to the dedication of an untold number of patriots like these 349 that we are able to meet here today, in the U.S. Senate, and openly debate the best solutions to the many diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom in a fractious world. We are grateful to them, their parents and their communities for instilling the character, values, discipline and mental and physical abilities of these outstanding young men and women. Their decision to serve our country will not go unrecognized as we thank these 349 graduating seniors for the selflessness and courage that they have shown by volunteering to risk their lives in defense of others. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of names of the high school seniors. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows: United States Army--98: Albright--Cleveland; Bankston--Ashtabula; Barnes-- Cleveland; Benz--Lakewood; Bodenski--Sheffield Village; Bradshaw--Akron; Burke--Garfield Heights; Burney--Akron; Carroll--Columbia Station; Chrosniak--Sheffield; Ciano--Kent; Clady--Elyria; Corponoi--Cleveland; Cristarella--Richmond; Dixon--Maple Heights; Dunaway--Brooklyn; Ebanoidze--Parma; Ellis--Kent; English--Geneva; Errington--Clinton; Fioritto-- Concord Township; Fisher, A--Amherst; Fleischmann-- Kingsville; Gibbons--Columbia Station; Giles--Cleveland; Gluntz--Parma; Gonzalez--Lorain; Gorham--Ravenna; Grenig-- Parma; Hadsell--Wayland; Haslam--Akron; Haworth--Kent; Helmick--Norton; Hooks--Euclid; Hooper--Chagrin Falls; Horner--Sheffield; Houdek, L--Bedford; Huertas--Parma; Hutson--Lakewood; Irby-Tinsley--Cleveland; Jackson, C-- Euclid; Jackson, M--Cleveland; Kantola--Kingsville; Khan-- Cleveland; Kirby--Ashtabula; Klein--Rock Creek; Kovach-- Andover; Lanier--Cleveland; Laubenthal--Sullivan; Liubin-- Mayfield Heights; Lutton--Madison; Mackell--Aurora; Maley-- West Salem; Malone--Parma; Mamus--Broadview Heights; McCown-- Akron; McDaniel--Lagrange; McFaul--Chesterland; Meinke-- Medina; Millhouse--Kent; Miramontes--Chesterland; Mozek-- Madison; Muska--South Amherst; Oakes--Pierpoint; Pesec-- Painesville; Petro--Ashtabula; Popek--Independence; Porter, J--Kent; Porter, L--Akron; Prendergast--North Royalton; Price, J--Norton; Rainey--Cleveland; Ray, D--Rootstown; Reese--Wellington; Roberts, T--Akron; Robinson--Euclid; Roper--Akron; Sarota--Elyria: Schwinn--Vermilion; Shelton-- Lorain; Shumate--Elyria; Stephan--Brecksville; Stephens-- Euclid; Stocker--Windham; Storms--Akron; Stowers--Vermilion; Sullivan--Lorain; Thomas--Conneaut; Travis--North Ridgeville; Unrue--Mogadore; Vance--Ashtabula; West--Lagrange; White, D-- Lakewood; White, J--Parma; Witczak--North Royalton; Woods-- Cleveland; Yarbrough--Cleveland. United States Marine Corps--134: Aguiar--Medina; Anthony--Akron; Arraj--Cleveland; Atterbury--East Lake; Austin--Garfield Heights; Babusharvey-- Maple Heights; Baker, B--Kirtland; Beirne--Medina; Benigni-- Brunswick; Bergdorf--Tallmadge; Biro--Middleburgh Heights; Block--Sheffield Lake; Bohne--Cleveland; Boomer--Hudson; Bowen--North Olmsted; Bozin--North Olmsted; Brabson, G-- Parma; Brill--Sheffield; Bruner--Willoughby; Bruno--Hudson; Buras--Hudson; Burlinghaus--Middleburgh Heights; Catavolos-- Rocky River; Chase--Sagamore; Chesek--North Royalton; Clark, J--Shaker Heights; Colon--Broadview Heights; Cool--Wasdworth; Cottingham--Shaker Heights; Cruse--Brunswick; Davis, B-- Mantua; Davis, E--Cleveland; Dekoning--Avon; Dodd--Cuhahoga Fall; Draughton--Cleveland; Ezell--Lagrange; Fadenholz-- Elyria; Fink--North Royalton; Fisher, J--Cleveland; Fortner-- Northfield; Fox--Akron; Gatliff--Wellington; Gerhart--Munroe Falls; Gill--Brunswick; Gonzales--Brooklyn; Graf, T--Ravenna; Graw--North Olmsted; Harmon--Elyria; Harter--Columbia Station; Hartley--Ravenna; Hasan--Cleveland; Heinzman-- Brunswick; Hicken--Cleveland; Hobart--Akron; Houchins-- Chesterland; Hufford--Cleveland; Jefferys--Akron; Jordan--Bay Village; Kaczmarek--Mentor; Keeran--Magadore; Kepple--Hiram; King--Cuyahoga Falls; Kinker--Diamond; Koleszar--Painesville; Ksenich--Amherst; Kubasky--Parma; Lang--Avon Lake; Likovic-- Eastlake; Long--Mogadore; Lorwanphet--Cleveland; Lucas-- Spencer; Martell--Cleveland; Martin--Lyndhurst; Martinez-- Cleveland; Martz--Hudson; Mayton--Avon; McComb--Euclid; McKinney--Shaker Heights; Molnar--Chardon; Moran--Cuyahoga Falls; Nichols, E--Cleveland; Nichols, T--Madison; Olexadolyk--Amherst; Palmer--Barberton; Parker--Medina; Parkham--Cleveland; Parr--Ravenna; Peck--Litchfield; Peele-- Hudson; Perry, D--Euclid; Perry, M--Akron; Peterjohn--Seven Hills; Phillips--Barberton; Poole--Cleveland; Price, J-- Norton; Pritschau--Perry; Prokop--Mentor; Puelo--Streetsboro; Quella--Strongsville; Quercioli--North Ridgeville; Ray, J-- Cuyahoga Falls; Reese--Clinton; Reinhart--Wadsworth; Richards, A--Grafton; Richards, M--Sheffield Lake; Riolo-- Columbia Station; Roberts, K--Akron; Roberts, T--Akron; Robertson--Cleveland; Rogers--North Ridgeville; Rooney-- Westlake; Rosenkranz--Medina; Salcedo--Cleveland; Shirey-- Barberton; Slattery--Painesville; Snyder, J--Wellington; Spelic--Medina; Stanton--North Ridgeville; Steinle--Medina; Stephen--Cleveland; Sterk--Wakeman; Swartwood--Norton; Switzer--Brunswick; Venus--Seville; Walters Brunswick; Wayman--Berlin Heights; Weese--Akron; Werdebaugh--Wellington; Westfall--Norton; Willis--Wellington; Wilson, R--Ravenna; Woodyard--Richfield; Zeigler--Medina; Zwegat--Broadview Heights. United States Navy--42: Adkins--Ashtabula; Armbrust--Wadsworth; Barchanowicz-- Ashtabula; Bennett--Wellington; Borelli--Fairport Harbor; Boscalion--Lodi; Brown--Wellington; Coffey--Geneva; Dane-- Avon; Dickson--Madison; Doniver--Cleveland; Evans--Canton; Fipps--Warrensville; Graham--Geneva; Guthrie--Medina; Hamid-- Avon Lake; Helderman--North Olmsted; Houdek, A--Geneva; Jackson, A--Ashtabula; Keith--Elyria; Lindak--North Ridgeville; Machesky--Amherst; Minnich--Elyria; Mitchell-- Warrensville Heights; Montgomery--Litchfield; Mullins-- Sullivan; Olbrysh--Mentor; Pillari--Strongsville; Reid--Parma Heights; Rice--Vermilion; Richards, J--Warrensville Heights; Roig--Olmsted Falls; Schuler--North Ridgeville; Sidwell-- Medina; Smith--Warrensville Heights; Squire--New London; Tomaszychi--Elyria; Towell--Spencer; Verdi--Ashtabula; Waites--Concord; Wilson, A--Vermilion; Zappitella--Conneaut. United States Air Force--25. Baade--South Euclid; Baird--Broadview Heights; Brandt-- Brookpark; Callahan-- Willoughby; Delp--Mentor; Felger--Middlefield; Gorta--Olmsted Falls; Halbrook--Willowick; Hernandez--Cleveland; Johnson, D--Cleveland Heights; Justiniano--Cleveland; Leach--Mentor; McFaul--Chardon; Moore--Nordonia; Munroe--Cleveland Heights; Novak--Brookpark; Nubert--Mentor; Ramsey--Avon; Semrau-- Mentor; Seufer--Chagrin Falls; Silc--Painesville; Skorupski-- Mentor; Snyder, A--Lorain; Wagner--Amherst; Williams, J-- Cleveland. Army National Guard--50: Amin--Strongsville; Beavers--Cuyahoga Falls; Brabson, S-- Macedonia; Casper--Mentor; Clark, K--Akron; Cripple--Akron; Cross--Cleveland Heights; Crowder--Clinton; Davey--Akron; Dragony--Brunswick; Ely--Brooklyn; Faulds--Copley; Foster-- Lagrange; Ganzer--Medina; Garcia--Lorain; Gigliotti-- Lagrange; Graf, B--North Royalton; Gray--Cleveland; Griffin-- Cuyahoga Falls; Grimes--Clinton; Harrison--Cleveland; Hasrouni--Brunswick; Heil--Strongsville; Hendrix--Elyria; Hunt--Lorain; Ibarra--Cleveland; Johnson, A--Cleveland; Kelly--Copley; Knafel--Akron; Marksbury--Amherst; Mireles-- Parma; Morrow--Akron; Ningard--North Royalton; Noble-- Clinton; Patsue--Olmsted Falls; Riley, A--Amherst; Rotilie-- Rootstown; Singleton--Cleveland; Slezak--North Royalton; Strouse--Cleveland; Suttle--Akron; Swanson--Cleveland; Toddy--Westlake; Turner--Vermilion; Urbanija--Fairview Park; Walker--Medina; Williams, R--Garfield Heights; Winkleman-- Fairview Park; Wite--Akron; Young--Cleveland.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. He makes great points about the need for us to use our resources at home on energy and for us to expand exports because that immediately creates jobs in this country. He has done it. As a Governor, he rolled up his sleeves and got directly involved in economic development. He knows what it takes. The fact that he has been a champion of this plan and helped put it together gives me confidence that this is going to work. We need to work on a bipartisan basis. We are reaching out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the administration. So much of this is common sense. These are things we should do now. We are also joined by our colleague from Wyoming. He is Wyoming's doctor. He is also a leader in the Senate and has taken the lead on a number of issues related to jobs, two of which are part of our jobs plan. One is, of course, the regulatory front, where he has taken the time to really dig into how these regulations affect business growth. He may have comments on that issue today. I would like to hear Dr. Barrasso on that point but also on the health care front where, as a doctor, he looked into what the impact of health care reform will be on jobs. This is something that perhaps does not get talked about enough. Unless we figure out a way to get health care costs under control, it will be harder for us to create opportunities in this country because the costs embedded in hiring a new employee under health care alone are so high that many companies are simply not hiring. I would love to hear his thoughts.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Madam President, as I said, we are also joined by Senator Cornyn of Texas. I am going to ask him in a minute to say a few words about the jobs plan. The input he has put into it has been terrific because he is the guy who understands, again, the importance of small business, the importance of us creating an environment through Washington laws and regulations that helps create jobs, and that it is not Washington that is going to create the jobs but the private sector that is going to do it. I ask my colleague from Texas to say a few words about his thoughts.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Tennessee. I happen to have the answer to his question. Yesterday--he is correct--we did propose a jobs plan, which is a series of commonsense proposals to get our economy back on track and create jobs across our country. You will recall that a few years ago there was a stimulus effort in the Congress--the President's $800 billion stimulus plan--that was passed. The idea was to get the economy back on track. There were estimates that it would have a big impact on job growth and, in fact, reduce our unemployment numbers significantly. That didn't happen. One of the reasons that didn't happen is because it relied too much on government providing the resources for jobs. Government doesn't create jobs, but government can create the climate for job growth. Our view is that we need to take a different approach. That approach is to stimulate private sector job growth and create that pro-growth environment. The seven proposals we announced yesterday as part of our jobs plan include being sure that we do indeed deal with the deficit and debt because that is a negative impact today on our economy. In fact, there are economic studies out there showing that our GDP is much smaller than it would otherwise be but for the deficit and debt. Also, we need to reform the Tax Code to spur economic growth. Economists across the spectrum agree that we can stimulate economic growth by having a Tax Code that makes more sense for job creation. Regulation is a major issue. We will hear from our colleagues who want to make sure we have regulatory relief for small businesses which are not able to create jobs because of the increased regulations coming from Washington. We need a workforce that is more competitive, and that requires the Federal Government to do a better job on workforce development. Also, there is the need to increase and expand exports. The President has talked about that. We are eager to get trade agreements in Congress. We can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs immediately through expanding markets. We also talked yesterday about energy. This is important. There are things we can do right now to get America less dependent upon foreign oil and use our own resources in this country more effectively. Then in terms of the health care circumstances--we will talk about this in a moment--every person I have talked to in Ohio, and I have been on over 200 factory visits in the last couple years--tells me the cost of health care is going up not down, which is making it harder to create jobs. We will talk about the need to reduce health care costs. This is a commonsense, seven-point plan to get the economy moving and create jobs. It is incredibly important to get the unemployment numbers down and to be sure American families have opportunities. It is also very important, though, in terms of dealing with the debt and deficit because, although we need to restrain spending--and Congress is beginning to take small steps in that regard--we also need to grow the economy. When we have 1.8 percent economic growth, which we had in the last quarter, which is anemic, weak, and not something we should be satisfied with, it is difficult to create that economic growth to help deal with this huge overhang of deficits and debts. As the Senator from Tennessee said, we have other colleagues with us today, and Senator John Hoeven from North Dakota will talk about these issues, as will Senator Barrasso from Wyoming. Senator Cornyn from Texas has just joined us. I ask Senator Hoeven, a former Governor of North Dakota--where there is about 3.6 percent unemployment and is a State that is producing domestic energy to help meet our needs and is a big State for exports-- if he will talk about his ideas on job growth and how it fits into this job plan.

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank Dr. Barrasso. I appreciate the amount of time he has put into this regulatory issue and the relief small businesses need on the regulatory front. It is obvious he is out talking to businesses, and it is directly related to jobs because we cannot get the jobs back unless we reduce the cost of doing business that comes from these regulations. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining in this colloquy?

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Texas. He is absolutely right. When we look at the budget deficit and the debt and the impact it is having on our economy today, it is clear we need constraints. Forty-nine States have a balanced budget requirement. When I am back home talking with people in our cities and counties, in their struggles with balancing their own budgets, they ask me: How can Washington continue to spend so much money it does not have? Forty cents of every dollar Washington spends today is borrowed money. Clearly that restraint is needed. It is important to get the economy back on track. Often we talk about the record budget deficit and the $14 trillion debt in terms of its impact on future generations. As the father of three, I am very concerned about that, as we all should be, because we are mortgaging their future, the excessive spending today that they are going to have to pay back. It is not just what is going to happen in the future. Our deficits and debts have gotten so big that there is an impact on the economy. There was a study done recently by a couple of respected economists-- Rogoff and Reinhart--which says, in looking around the world, where a country's debt is up to 90 percent of its total economy, you have about a 1-percent decline in the GDP or the growth in the economy. Our growth was only 1.8 percent last quarter. That means it should have been at least 2.8 percent but for our debt and deficit because now our gross debt is 100 percent of our economy. So we are over that 90-percent threshold, and we are impacting our economy today. When we think about it, with all the government borrowing out there, it is crowding out private borrowing. There are fewer jobs being created in America because the government is playing a bigger and bigger role, crowding out the ability of small businesses to get a loan. I also join a lot of other folks in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle in my deep concern about the possibility of a debt crisis if we do not deal with these historic deficits and debts. That could send our economy into a tailspin with sky-high interest rates, with inflation that is already rearing its ugly head again in this country. We need to address this issue because it is the right thing to do for future generations--it is really a moral issue--but also because it does impact what is going on today in our economy and our ability to get this economy back on track and create jobs. It is so important to American families and, as I said earlier, so important for us dealing with the fiscal problems because we have to both restrain spending and grow the economy, increase economic activity, which will increase revenues. Madam President, can you give me a warning when we have 5 minutes remaining in the colloquy today? I would like to turn back to my colleague from Tennessee who started this off this morning talking about the importance of this job plan.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague very much.

Mr. PORTMAN. First of all, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for helping to promote this idea. Again, we are looking to reach out to Democrats in this Chamber, in the House, and working with the administration, to actually get this done. We need to get the American economy back on track. I just heard the Senator talk about trade, and we talked about that earlier. But as was said earlier, we need to increase exports because exports equal jobs. If we look at these three pending trade agreements, which the administration has yet to send to Congress--and we can't move unless they do that--they would create, alone, between 250,000 and 380,000 jobs, depending on what numbers you look at. Think about that, hundreds of thousands of jobs are ready to be created right now by knocking down barriers to our workers, our farmers, and our service providers just in these three instances alone. We also need to provide the President with the authority to knock down more barriers by giving him trade promotion authority. So I call on the administration to send us those agreements--free up those agreements--and allow us here in America to be able to create more jobs by expanding our exports, by leveling this playing field between these three countries--Panama, Korea, and Colombia--and then let us get busy on having the United States even more engaged in international trade, expanding exports and, therefore, creating jobs. Let me review quickly these seven core areas and then turn it back to my colleague from Tennessee. We do need to focus on the fiscal situation, as we have talked about, to be able to help the economy. Our Tax Code needs to be reformed to create economic growth. We can do that. We know there is a way to do it without raising taxes and by reforming the code and making it more progrowth; the regulations we talked about that are stifling so many small businesses in this country; the competitive workforce, retraining is critical, and we can do a much better job taking the existing Federal resources and directing them toward retraining for jobs that are actually there; expanding exports, we just talked about; of course, powering America's economy by using more of our own domestic resources--renewable but also traditional uses of energy; and, finally, getting health care costs down, as Senator Barrasso talked about. If we do these things, we will create more hope and opportunity at a time when it is so desperately needed. We should be able to do it because they are commonsense ideas. I thank my colleagues.