Floor Statements

Mr. President, my colleague from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, has been talking about a lot of the issues related to the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. He has talked about the fact that the mandates in this legislation don't work for many Americans. The one-size-fits-all approach that was taken doesn't work in my State of Ohio and around the country.

He also spoke about the cost. Unfortunately, it is not the Affordable Care Act; it tends to be, for a lot of people, the unaffordable care act. Costs have gone up already too high. We are now finding a lot of small businesses in my home State of Ohio are simply squeezed to the point where they are worried whether they will be able to provide health care at all, given the huge increases in cost.

These are all very serious concerns and reasons that I think we need to repeal and replace with policies that work better to provide people more choices and provide people lower cost of care so they can get health care for themselves and their families.

I want to talk about a very specific aspect of ObamaCare and its implementation that concerns me. I came to the floor a couple of days ago to talk about this because I had just learned, actually from some press reports, about some potential problems with implementation. Unfortunately, since that time it has been confirmed through other sources that many of my concerns are legitimate. The concern is very simple: That despite assurances by the administration to the contrary, they have yet to put in place a mechanism to assure that the people who are getting the subsidies under ObamaCare are eligible for them. This is a major problem because we are talking about billions and billions of dollars. It is a surprise, probably, to a lot of my constituents and other folks who might be listening today that the administration hasn't even put in place the basic processes, the mechanisms we would expect in an automated system, to ensure that when people apply for these subsidies--which are substantial; up to 400 percent of poverty, remember, and up to 10,000 bucks for a family of 4, for instance--that they may or may not be eligible and yet they may be getting these payments. Some people may be overstating their income and some people may be understating their income, and some folks may get a very unfortunate surprise of a big tax bill because of it.

It is unbelievable that after a few years of implementation, still there is not in place some sort of a system to ensure that the right people are getting these huge amounts of taxpayer dollars. Improper payments of these subsidies may be going, we are told, to over a million people who aren't eligible to receive them. Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the number is actually closer to 2 million people who are receiving subsidies, despite apparent discrepancies between what they are submitting--the data they are giving about their income information--and what the IRS already has. By the way, the Health and Human Services folks and CMS confirmed this report yesterday when they said: ``The typical family of four generated 21 separate pieces of information that required verification, and all were attested to under penalty of perjury.'' Given that we expect this subsidy program to cost about $36 billion this year alone, these improper payments would likely result in billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.

So at the very least, I am concerned that folks are going to find they have some very unpleasant and unexpected tax bills coming up, and the most we are seeing is a lot of taxpayer dollars that aren't going to the intended purpose.

It is not as if we did not anticipate this problem. This is obviously something a lot of people thought about and talked about. In fact, we knew it would be difficult to verify all these dozens of pieces of information we just heard about from CMS. That is why last year Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion to require the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that it had these controls in place to verify the eligibility of subsidy recipients. We enshrined that requirement in law as part of what was called the Continuing Appropriations Act--better known as the Ryan-Murray budget agreement-- at the end of last year. Part of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement was to say that CMS at HHS had to have in place these controls to ensure people were getting the funds that were appropriate for them.

On January 1, as required by law, Secretary Sebelius certified to Congress ``that the American Health Benefit Exchanges [the so-called marketplaces] verify that applicants for advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions are eligible for such payments and reductions, consistent with the requirements of [the Affordable Care Act].'' So Secretary Sebelius made certain commitments there. She also further told Congress that the exchanges had ``implemented numerous systems and processes to carry out'' their verification responsibilities, including their income verification responsibilities. So this is an assurance given to us by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We are now learning through reports in the press--which were spurred by confidential sources within HHS, by the way--that these verification methods are not in place or, if they are, they are very poorly functioning at best. In fact, HHS is planning to begin the verification process--here we are 5 months later--for some of this information by hand at some point in the future.

When I learned of these reports--and they have been in the Washington Post and they have been in Politico--I hoped they were mistaken. So I wrote to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I also wrote to the IRS Commissioner--this was last month--asking if these allegations were true and, if they were, what HHS was planning on doing about them.

If the Post or Politico got the story wrong, I would have expected a quick response saying: No, these reports are wrong. The internal reports they are referring to are inaccurate.

But instead I did not get an answer. I gave them until June 1 to give me an answer, to give them some time to get back to me. It is now June 5 and I have received nothing--nothing to address my concerns. In fact, I have received no answer at all. I know some of my colleagues have raised similar concerns without receiving answers. Like so many issues that have arisen with the implementation of ObamaCare, the administration's response has been nothing but silence and stonewalling--no transparency.

We do not have time for political games. The American people do not have time for it. We have true budget pressures. Folks are already paying a lot in terms of income taxes. They do not want to pay more. They certainly do not want the income taxes they are paying going to folks who are not eligible for this $36 billion worth of benefits going out this year.

Since the administration refuses to voluntarily provide the information we need to do our job overseeing the expenditure of these funds, I think serious action is necessary. That is why today I am making a formal written request to HHS Inspector General Daniel R. Levinson to begin an investigation into these reports which call into question the accuracy of the Secretary's certification required, again, by the Continuing Appropriations Act, the Ryan-Murray legislation at the end of the year.

I know the IG is scheduled to provide a report to Congress next month regarding how effective HHS has been in preventing subsidy payments on the basis of inaccurate or fraudulent information, but in light of the apparent inconsistencies between the Secretary's certification and the recent media reports, I think a more in-depth and targeted investigation is warranted. The IG's office has promised that ``ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent for their intended purposes'' under ObamaCare is its ``top priority.'' That is what that said. So these allegations certainly should strike at the very heart of that mission.

If it is true that HHS has failed to implement a modern, effective system

for verifying the eligibility of folks seeking subsidies, we need know about it. They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. Well, I think that is the case here. The best way to ensure that these tax dollars are not wasted is to simply get the information. Let us know what is going on.

I hope the Obama administration and, after her confirmation--I think she will be confirmed--Secretary Burwell will show their commitment to responsible government by joining me in calling for this investigation and responding quickly and accurately to whatever shortcomings it uncovers. But if the administration does not, then it will fall to those of us in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle to take action. I sincerely hope it will not come to that.

I plan to support Director Burwell's nomination today because I think she is a manager, and I think that is what we need right now at the Department of Health and Human Services. I would say this ought to be one of her top priorities as the new manager at HHS--to ensure that the problems we have seen with the implementation of ObamaCare do not continue and specifically that we are not seeing huge amounts of taxpayer dollars being misspent, being wasted through inaccurate verification of these subsidies.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. President, a momentous occasion is occurring tomorrow; that is, the 70th anniversary of D-day. Seventy years ago tomorrow, as the American people slept in their beds, the greatest naval invasion in history was underway.

On D-day, June 6, 1944, tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen joined allies from around the free world to begin what General Eisenhower called a great crusade--one that sought to free a continent. They came by amphibious landing craft, and I think my colleague from Louisiana is going to talk more about that in a moment. They also came by gliders laden with men and materiel and by parachutes deployed deep behind enemy lines. At beaches called Omaha and Utah and at the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc, they struck a mortal blow to the Nazi regime. Thousands would give their lives that day for that noble cause.

Like many in this Chamber, I have seen the American cemetery over there with rows of white crosses and Stars of David. They are a stark reminder of the price those brave heroes paid for all of us. These men did not go into battle alone. General Eisenhower said to the Allied Expeditionary Force on the eve of the battle, ``The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.'' Eisenhower was not exaggerating. As word of the invasion spread through the predawn hours of Tuesday morning, people gathered all over this country in churches, synagogues, meeting houses, public places

large and small, to seek God's blessing on men who were even then in harm's way.

As the battle raged on that day, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the Nation. He did not choose to address the American people with a speech; instead, he delivered words of prayer by radio address as the fate of Europe and, indeed, the entire free world hung in the balance. It is a very powerful prayer, transcending all faiths. It is a prayer that tells the story of why America fought and makes evident the sacrifices we were willing to make to see through to victory with God's help. It is a prayer that speaks to the horrors of war and the beauty of peace. It is a prayer that captures--perhaps better than anything else written since--the magnitude of what happened that day as we hit the beaches of Normandy.

I hope that prayer will never be forgotten, and that is why Senator Landrieu and I believe that prayer should be added as part of the World War II monument pursuant to bipartisan legislation we have been working on for a few years. I previously cosponsored it with Senator Lieberman and now with Senator Landrieu. It has gone through the Energy Committee twice with unanimous votes. It is called the World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013. This legislation also passed the House of Representatives by a significant vote, 286 to 26.

I would like to recite that prayer now with my colleague from Louisiana. I would like her to begin this prayer. After nearly 70 years, it still has the power to bring us together as a people and remind us that while we may have differences at times, there are so many things that do unite us.

Mr. President, I defer to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. President, the prayer continues:

And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives,

sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts

and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to

rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of

great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single

day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the

desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a

continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again

when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips,

invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to

redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the

material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail,

to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our

sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in

our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade.

Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not

the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but

fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable

purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces

of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and

racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and

with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a

sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy

men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom,

reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, almighty God. Amen.

Mr. President, that was the prayer that Franklin Roosevelt gave on that fateful day. Of course, many of the men who fought that day have gone on to their eternal reward, and some of them will mark tomorrow with quiet remembrances with families and friends.

Senator Landrieu has noted that there will be people from Louisiana going over to the D-day celebrations--it sounds like some by boat--also from Ohio and from all over the country. Our President will be there. Some will go there to retrace their steps and to see where they were on those beaches. Others will go just to see the cemeteries and remember their fallen comrades. There is a 93-year-old gentleman from Ohio named Jim Martin. He will be there too. He will be jumping from an airplane at 93 years old and parachuting onto the same soil he took back from the Nazis 70 years ago. On behalf of all of us, I wish Jim Godspeed.

There is very little we can add to the legacy they have created for themselves, but we can honor it and we can remember it, and that is what this bipartisan legislation is all about. Again, I crafted it originally with then-Senator Joe Lieberman and now have joined with Senator Landrieu to introduce it in this Congress. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial a plaque with the inscription of the prayer we have just read.

Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed this legislation with an overwhelming vote of 386 to 26, and after a hearing on May 29, they are moving forward with doing so again. Today, on the eve of this historic anniversary, it is time for the Senate to lead the way toward enshrining this

singular moment in the history of our great country.

Senator Landrieu and I intend to call up Calendar No. 339 later this afternoon, and we hope in doing so we will achieve unanimous consent to be able to have the Senate proceed to consideration of this legislation, and then ask unanimous consent for it to be passed by this body. This is legislation we have worked on carefully. It has gone through the process of working with the Department of the Interior. We have ensured that it is consistent not just with the Department of Interior but also specifically with the Commemorative Works Act. It is something that, again, has been bipartisan and something that helps to bring this Congress and this country together during a critical time.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana for working with me. I think it is an incredibly important opportunity for us, on the eve of the 70th anniversary, to pass this legislation here in the Senate, thereby doing something positive for the future by telling them the importance of the past. This prayer is certainly part of that.

I yield for my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana and I look forward to being back on the floor shortly to propound the unanimous consent request to pass this legislation and to do so prior to this momentous 70th anniversary tomorrow.

I yield back my time, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Alaska, who is the ranking member, and thank her for her hard work. She mentioned the energy efficiency bill. I know she strongly supports that bill, and I hope it will come back to the floor. It is a more logical way to get at some of these issues.

I come to the floor to follow up on the conversation I had earlier with Senator Landrieu. She and I announced earlier this afternoon that we were going to offer unanimous consent in the Senate on bipartisan and noncontroversial legislation. I had hoped Senator Landrieu would come back to the floor, but apparently she can't, so I will offer this on behalf of both of us.

Directing the Secretary of the Interior to Install a World War II

Memorial Plaque

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in legislative session, that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 339, S. 1044.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, the clerk just read part of the description of this legislation, and I thank this body on both sides of the aisle for working with us.

Tomorrow we mark a momentous occasion. It is the 70th anniversary of D-day. It is a day, of course, that will go down in history as one of the greatest naval invasions in the history of our country but also a day when we lost many brave American soldiers and one where the country came together to pray for them and give them the strength they would need not just on that D-day but to go through Europe to ultimately vanquish the Nazis and liberate that continent.

On that day, 70 years ago tomorrow, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided not to give a speech at the White House but instead to give a prayer for the troops and for the Nation. This body has just passed legislation to make that prayer a part of the World War II Memorial. That prayer will help to give it some additional context and interpretation at a critical time. The prayer helps us look at our history and shows how our country came together at a critical time. It is a very powerful prayer. My dad was a World War II veteran, and I always found it to be one of the most moving prayers in our Nation's history.

I will mention a couple of aspects of this prayer. President Roosevelt explained--I thought in very powerful words--why America fought. When talking about the troops, he said:

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without

rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by

noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the

violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They

fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end

conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice

arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They

yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the

haven of home.

That is why we fight.

Again, I think that prayer is an important part of our history but also an important message for us even today.

The prayer also includes a number of other very powerful messages that brought the Nation together in a single day for prayer and thanksgiving. It asks for God's help in a number of ways, and one that I think is particularly poignant is where it asks God to give us the ability to deepen our faith.

It says:

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee, faith in

our sons; faith in each other . . .

Again, I appreciate the work of Senator Landrieu and, before her, Senator Lieberman, who was the original cosponsor with me on this legislation.

I thank my friends from Ohio, the Christian Alliance, and others who have brought this to my attention over the years.

I thank my colleagues in the House, who passed this legislation last year with a resounding vote. I hope they will take up this legislation and pass it again in the House this year so we can indeed move to have this inscription placed in the World War II Memorial in order to remind us of a day in our Nation's history where our country did come together and where we, as Americans--not as conquerors but as liberators-- provided for the liberation of a continent and established this precedent for our country that with God so much is possible.

I yield back my time and note the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 9 minutes.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Presiding Officer allowing me to speak this afternoon. I am speaking in the context of a nomination we are likely to consider on the floor this week. I am told on Thursday we are going to be asked to confirm the President's nomination of Sylvia Burwell to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This is a very important job for a number of reasons. One reason is it is the job in charge of implementing the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Therefore, I think it is an appropriate time to talk about the urgent need for us to address some of the continuing problems we have had with implementation.

This whole subject of ObamaCare of course has divided this Chamber pretty sharply over the last few years. Part of the reason is it was forced through the Congress without a single bipartisan vote; in other words, all Democratic votes and not a single Republican vote. Also, it was pushed through quickly, so it resulted in a lot of problems. We have seen that in terms of the implementation of ObamaCare generally, including some of the computer problems and some of the concerns people have about having their health care canceled and so on.

I wish to speak about a specific issue with regard to implementation, one on which I hope we could be together, that this issue would unite us as Republicans and Democrats--that we would take forceful action to deal with it. It is an issue I think all of us agree on because it has to do with the taxpayers. It has to do with money that might be going out under ObamaCare that is not appropriate. It is ensuring that the subsidy payments in ObamaCare are going to the people who actually qualify for them.

As this Chamber knows, the subsidies started to flow on January 1. ObamaCare provides subsidies to health care premiums for low- and middle-income Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid. They are not under the poverty line but are above the poverty line; actually, above 133 percent of the poverty line. In fact, people who earn up to 400 percent of the poverty line are eligible for these subsidies. Recently, the Kaiser Foundation estimated the number of people who can legally qualify for these funds and receive them is about 6.6 million Americans. These subsidies can be fairly large. They can exceed $10,000 a year, for instance, for a family of four. So we are talking about billions of dollars of taxpayer money. The question is, Are they going to the right people? I think, because there is so much money involved, the American people should be able to rightly expect that the government has in place a system to ensure that the people who are supposed to get it are getting it and to ensure that those who are claiming the subsidies and receiving the taxpayer dollars are eligible for them.

In January of this year, in response to a requirement actually attached to legislation that passed the Senate called the Ryan-Murray budget--in response to that legislation where there was a requirement that there be some sort of process put in place--the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, ensured Congress in a letter that HHS had ``implemented numerous systems and processes to carry out'' income verification procedures.

So she sent a letter to the Congress saying: Don't worry about it. We have it covered. We have implemented numerous systems and processes to carry out income verification procedures.

Unfortunately, what we are finding out now--and here we are, gosh, 6 months later--is that a lot of those assurances might not be accurate, that it appears as though they have not put in place these processes.

The Washington Post wrote a recent article that got my attention. It got my attention because it reported that, in fact, no permanent system has been built that is capable of verifying those eligible to receive the subsidies. In fact, according to internal reports that were obtained by the Washington Post, since no computer capability for verifying eligibility yet exists, Health and Human Services will begin sorting through all these applications by hand at some indefinite date in the future.

So this is concerning. These internal reports are not reports we have here in Congress. They are not reports my constituents have. The American people have not been able to see these reports. But the Washington Post got hold of some that showed, in fact, they have not put in this permanent system or an automated system of any kind that you would normally expect with this kind of money going out the door.

So here we are in 2014 and the U.S. Government is going to comb through, I guess by hand, literally millions of documents of people who are claiming subsidies--by hand--and try to figure out how to deal with it. It is like something out of a bad movie, but it is not a laughing matter because the consequences are significant.

The Washington Post reports that the government may already be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million people, although that is just a best guess. These fraudulent payments--if that is accurate--of course, would then be costing the American taxpayers millions, maybe billions of dollars.

When news broke about this problem last month through this story in the Washington Post, I wrote a letter to Secretary Sebelius at the Health and Human Services agency. I also wrote it to the IRS Commissioner because the obvious thing to do would be to check the information that is given with the IRS records to see whether the 1040 matches up with what you are saying your income is.

In the letter, I said: Can you give us the answers about these very serious questions that have been raised, and can you tell us what the Department of Health and Human Services is doing about this?

I asked for a response by June 1. It is now past June 1 and I have received nothing but silence in response. That is why I have come to the floor today to say, look, I do not think anybody on either side of the aisle in the Senate thinks this is acceptable. Some on the other side might say: Well, we are more concerned about people who are not getting the subsidies they are eligible for because the verification is not in place to help them. That is fine. The point is that the subsidies ought to go to the people who are eligible. Whether they are overstating or understating their income and therefore made eligible or not eligible, there ought to be a system in place. That is a minimum requirement, I would think, that we would all want to have in place to be able to, again, save these payments from going out in a fraudulent way, to the tune of what could be billions of dollars. I cannot imagine anyone thinks the current situation is acceptable.

So we are going to see if HHS gets its act together and gets serious about enforcing these rules. I think it is going to require new leadership. That is why I am hoping that with the nomination and debate this week of Sylvia Burwell to be the next Secretary of HHS, we can have a discussion about this issue and that she can provide some of that new leadership from the top to ensure that indeed we do have accountability through the system and we can figure out whether this situation will be resolved.

Unfortunately, I think it is also going to require leadership from the top-top, meaning from the White House as well. This is not an isolated incident, unfortunately, of incompetence, I would say, on behalf of our Federal Government in implementing in this case a very complicated law. We have seen this recently with the scandal

that has involved the VA--the VA health system--another big complicated system that is obviously not working to take care of the needs of our veterans, who should be at the front of the line receiving the best care and too often we find out are at the back of the line or maybe are not on the list at all, as we saw with regard to the Phoenix VA center, where 1,700 people were just taken off the list altogether. We have seen it with regard to the IRS scandal, where you have the Internal Revenue Service actually going after Americans because of their political beliefs. Nothing could be more wrong in terms of building faith and trust in our Federal system than to think that the tax collector is going after folks because of their political beliefs.

So all these recent issues that have come up of incompetence and of the government not keeping the trust are bad. It is bad even in good times. Today is not good times because already that faith in the Federal Government is at record lows. The faith in this institution is at a record low, they say.

It should be our responsibility to begin to rebuild that faith by doing what makes sense. What is going on at HHS does not make sense. Everyone knows there needs to be a system in place and a permanent automated system to deal with this; the same with the VA, the same with the IRS. I hope we see that kind of leadership. I hope we can do that because it is the right thing to do for taxpayers, but it also rebuilds trust in the American Government system. To do that is going to require some serious and immediate action.

In the case of HHS, I call on the administration today to make good on the promise they made in January where they said: No problem. We have it covered. We have a system in place to ensure that there are not mispayments going out, that only folks who are eligible are going to get these payments.

In the process of Sylvia Burwell's nomination, let's raise this issue. Let's encourage her to show leadership at HHS to be able to deal with this issue. Let's ensure that subsidies are going to the right people and that taxpayers are being protected.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to recognize Rabbi Aaron Panken, on the occasion of his inauguration as president of the widely- respected Hebrew Union College, HUC,-Jewish Institute of Religion, the Reform movement's rabbinical school, on June 8, 2014. HUC was founded in Cincinnati in 1875 by Rabbi Isaac Wise.

As president, Panken will serve as the chief executive officer of Hebrew Union College's four campuses--in Cincinnati, Jerusalem, Los Angeles and New York. The 12th president in HUC's 138-year history, Panken succeeds Rabbi David Ellenson, who served from 2001 to 2013, and has been named chancellor upon his retirement.

Rabbi Panken, 49, of Mamaroneck, N.Y., brings an impressive record to HUC. He has taught rabbinic and Second Temple literature at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York since 1995. He has also served as vice president for strategic initiatives, dean of the New York campus and dean of students.

Rabbi Panken grew up on Manhattan's Upper West Side, went straight from college to a job as regional director of the North American Federation of Temple Youth, was ordained by Hebrew Union College, worked as an associate rabbi at Manhattan's Congregation Rodeph Shalom and earned a doctorate in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University.

I congratulate Aaron Panken as he begins this new chapter in his distinguished career.

Madam President, we yield back all time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to urge my colleagues to support the energy legislation we hope to bring to the floor this week. We are still working through some of the possible amendments on that, as well.

This is good legislation that has been on the floor before. Actually, about 6 months ago we took this up on the Senate floor. Since that time we have actually added about 10 bipartisan amendments to the bill, making it even stronger.

But it is a bill that is good for jobs. It is good for American energy security and therefore good for our national security. It is good because it is going to save taxpayers a lot of money, and it is also good because it is a bill that actually helps to grow the economy while improving the environment.

I have been working on this bill for about 3 years now with Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire. We also have other cosponsors on both sides of

the aisle--6 Republicans and 6 Democrats--who have been part of this process. We hope to be able to get this legislation on the floor this week because it is a good bill and it deserves to be passed.

When we have come to the floor before and we have talked about it, we have talked about the fact that it helps manufacturers in Ohio and around the country to take advantage of energy savings techniques and the best technology, allowing them to save more money so they can invest more in plants and equipment and in people, adding more jobs. That is why, by the way, over 270 businesses and business organizations--from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers--and a lot of other trade groups on both sides of the political spectrum--have endorsed this legislation.

We have also come to the floor and talked about how provisions in this legislation will save the equivalent of taking 80 million homes off the grid by the year 2030--a cumulative energy savings, by the way, of up to $100 billion. It is called the Energy Security and Industrial Competitiveness Act. Again, it makes a lot of sense.

We talk about how taxpayer dollars will be saved because we require the Federal Government to practice what it preaches; in other words, to make the Federal Government, the largest energy user in the United States, much more efficient in its own energy practices.

The time for talking about this legislation, however, has gone. It is now time to pass it. When we do, we can then work with the other body-- the House of Representatives--because they have already passed significant parts of our legislation earlier this year. We can bring together the legislation we would pass here on the floor with the House legislation and send it to the President for signature.

At a time when people are understandably concerned about the partisan gridlock here in the Senate, and in Washington in general, this is an example of something we can actually get done. Again, it has been bipartisan from the start. It came out of the committee with a big vote--18 to 3. It is one to which we have added more bipartisan support over the last 6 months by adding more amendments.

Let's do something that will actually surprise the American people. Let's do something that will help move our country forward, create more jobs, help the environment be cleaner, also helping our energy security and therefore our national security, and saving taxpayers a lot of money.

Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are skeptical of any energy legislation they have seen in the past, that this Senate and the Congress have passed some proposals that are top-down proposals that impose mandates on the American people. They have also seen costly legislation that funnels subsidies to preferred industries, companies, technologies, distorting the market and ending up in what have sometimes been some very expensive failures. That is not this legislation.

This legislation on energy efficiency contains no mandates. The bill is about giving people access to information they can use, not about making the American people or businesses do something.

Not only does it have no mandates, but it does not add to our deficits. Every authorization contained in this bill is fully offset by savings elsewhere in the budget. In fact, the reforms made in this legislation will save taxpayers a lot of money.

Some of it can be scored. There is a $10 million savings, for instance, on the mandatory side by some of the legislative changes we are making. A lot of it won't get a score because it is additional savings we will see by having the Federal Government be much more energy efficient, which saves money for us all as taxpayers.

Unlike some of these previous energy initiatives which were costly and I think inappropriate, this legislation relies on the market and on the States--not the Federal Government--to drive efficiency improvements.

There is a reason this legislation received this strong vote out of the energy committee, 19 to 3. It has been improved since then with the addition of these 10 bipartisan amendments. It is going to create new jobs, it is going to save money for the taxpayers, and it is going to help with regard to the environment.

By the way, our economy is going to be helped because we rely on affordable and reliable energy in this country. It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to secure more affordable and more reliable energy by adopting what a lot of people talk about is an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

To me, that means producing more energy--yes, including oil and natural gas. In my own State of Ohio, we have a great opportunity there. It also includes being sure that we are using the coal resources we have, nuclear power, and renewables. We should be making it easier to take advantage of these resources and to bring more of these resources to market at lower costs.

But at the same time, we should be taking steps to reduce waste. This is complementary. This is not something that should be either you are for producing more energy or you are for more energy efficiency. We should be for both. We should be producing more and using less. That helps grow the economy, create jobs, and makes us more competitive in the global economy in which we find ourselves.

Energy efficiency, by the way, of all those energy sources, is the lowest-hanging fruit. Think about it. It is the least expensive form of energy--the energy we don't end up having to use.

I think this is a commonsense approach which should be able to be debated on the floor in an honest way, with other energy-related amendments; and then, after that process, to pass it here in the Senate, get it over to the House, work on a compromise with the House with their legislation and our legislation, get it to the President for signature, and actually move on with an opportunity to truly begin the process of putting in place a national strategy that has this all-of- the-above approach--producing more and using less.

I look forward to working with my colleagues this week on engaging in this debate, passing this legislation, and helping the constituents whom we represent on issues that are important to them--jobs, saving taxpayer money, making the environment cleaner, ensuring that America has a secure energy future, which is important to our national security.

I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Columbus State Community College in recognition of its 50th anniversary and the opportunities it has provided to students throughout Ohio. On September 30, 1963, Columbus State was founded in the basement of Central High School in Columbus, OH. Since its inception, Columbus State has grown tremendously by expanding its enrollment and academic offerings from an initial 67 students to more than 25,000 students. The diverse student body has come from more than 130 countries and all of Ohio's 88 counties.

The mission of Columbus State is ``to educate and inspire, providing [its] students with the opportunity to achieve their goals.'' This mission is vital to the Columbus community. Throughout its 50 years, Columbus State has provided exemplary educational opportunities through more than 200-plus degree and certificate programs. It has awarded nearly 50,000 degrees and has a nearly $1 billion annual impact on the local economy. The school also provides several transfer options and continuing education opportunities to students.

I have visited Columbus State and seen firsthand the excellent education and training it provides to students, including the resources available through the Center for Workforce Development. The center collaborates with companies in the Columbus region to address workforce needs through innovative approaches to education and customized training. It is helping to ensure that students are prepared with the skills they need for the jobs of the 21st century.

I am pleased to honor Columbus State Community College and congratulate everyone who was a part of making its first 50 years a success.

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

I wish to speak as if in morning business.

The DATA Act

Mr. President, I was not able to be here earlier on the Senate floor when my colleague Senator Warner got unanimous consent to pass the DATA Act. This is the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, something we have been working on over the last couple of years.

It is a good bill, and it is about good government and I am glad we were able to pass it this afternoon in the Senate. I now hope it will go to the House for passage and get to the President's desk, because it will help to give all the taxpayers a better view into our government.

Specifically, it improves Federal financial transparency and data quality, both of which are going to help identify and illuminate the ways we spend--certainly something we should be focused on with the huge deficits and all the pressure we are facing.

It will also ease the compliance burden with the people working in the Federal Government and recipients of Federal funds. At the same time it improves the data that they send to the Federal Government. It is a win/win for the taxpayer, for the government, at getting at the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse.

It is an issue that transcends party lines. I want to thank my friend Senator Coburn because he has been a leader in the Governmental Affairs Committee and also the chairman of the committee, Senator Tom Carper. Without their help, Senator Warner and I would not have been able to get this bill to the floor today. We also have a number of other cosponsors on a bipartisan basis.

We all know that the Federal Government spends a lot of money--over $3 trillion a year. The goal is to know more about how that money is spent so we can ensure it is being spent on the right things. This legislation, the DATA Act, picks up on lessons we learned about how to make it more accountable and more transparent so taxpayers have a better understanding of how the money is being used. This has to do with grants and contracts. I think it is something that is going to help ensure that we are not just spending the money right but also eliminating fraud and abuse that we otherwise would not find.

I first got involved in this issue when I was at the Office of Management and Budget. I supported it and then was tasked with implementing a 2006 bill that was introduced by Senator Coburn and Senator Obama at the time. It was called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, FFATA--an unfortunate acronym in my view.

FFATA worked in the sense that it led to something which is called usaspending.gov. Back then a lot of Federal agencies thought this could not be done; that we wouldn't be able to improve our transparency up to the standards that were established in FFATA, and we proved them wrong, thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of folks in the agencies and at the Office of Management and Budget where I served as Director. It ended up with the ability of taxpayers to get a wealth of information online, again, about Federal grants and Federal contracts so they could better understand how their tax dollars were spent.

It was a good start. It also helped us learn some lessons about how to improve fiscal data quality and transparency even more. We learned that the usaspending.gov can be more comprehensive, more accurate, more reliable, and more timely.

By the way, if you have not gone on this Web site, usaspending.gov, I recommend it. If we pass this legislation, you will like it even more because the data you will be seeing will be more understandable, will be more uniform across the agencies, and will enable us all, as taxpayers, to get a better view into the government.

What does it do? First, it makes it easier to compare spending across the Federal agencies by requiring establishment of these governmentwide standards, such as financial data standards, which is very difficult to do, as I learned when I was at the Office of Management and Budget. It sounds easy, but it is hard and it pays off. It promotes consistency and reliability in data. Second, it strengthens the Federal financial transparency by reforming and significantly improving the Web site itself. It requires more frequent updates--quarterly financial updates of spending by each Federal agency on their programs and at the object class-level basis. It is basically more

specific data and more up-to-date so it refreshes the Web site more to make it more useful.

Third, it empowers the inspector general and the GAO to hold agencies accountable. I think putting the inspectors general into this is a good idea because it has another level of accountability. This will make them more accountable for completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data they are submitting to the usaspending.gov. This is new and will make the Web site work even better.

Fourth, it simplifies the reporting requirements by recipients of Federal funds, eliminating unnecessary duplication and burdensome regulations. It basically streamlines what people have to provide to the Federal Government. This will actually make it easier for us to understand what is going on with these contractors, again, as taxpayers doing oversight, but it also makes it easier to do business with the Federal Government. It makes it less complicated for them and gives more transparency for taxpayers, so it is another good aspect of this legislation.

I think each of these reforms will enhance Federal financial accountability in real ways by allowing citizens to track government spending better, allowing agencies to more easily identify improper payments and unnecessary spending.

We have a big issue around here with spending. We spend more than we take in every year to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. We have a debt that is at least $17 trillion. It is time to make sure we are not wasting money that could be applied to that debt or it could pay for programs that are a top priority. This bipartisan legislation will help us get there.

I am very pleased we were able to get it passed today. Again, I will be working hard with Senator Warner and others to ensure that we get this through the House and to the President's desk for signature so we can indeed begin to help all of us as citizens have a better view into our Federal Government.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 10th anniversary of the Martin de Porres Center in Columbus, OH. Named after the Dominican Saint Martin de Porres, and sponsored by the Dominican Sisters of Peace, the center was founded in 2004 as a place for spirituality, education, arts, and ministry outreach to the people of central Ohio.

Over the last decade, the center has become a pillar of the central Ohio community, bringing people together and helping them reach their full potential. For example, through the Dominican Learning Center, members of the community are able to participate in the adult literacy program, which provides free one-on-one tutoring. The center also serves the Columbus region by connecting youth to its older population through discussions and study groups.

I have visited the Martin de Porres Center and have seen firsthand the excellent work of the Dominican Sisters of Peace. The positive contributions made by the center are countless. Its outreach and dedication to the region in spiritual, mental, and artistic growth have been commendable. I thank everyone involved in making the center's first 10 years a success and wish them the best of luck in the coming decades.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor 393 high school seniors in eight northeast Ohio counties for their commendable decision to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Of these 393 seniors from 129 high schools in 106 towns and cities, 91 will enter the Army, 104 will enter the Marine Corps, 47 will enter the Navy, 32 will enter the Air Force, 5 will enter the Coast Guard, 100 will enter our Ohio Army National Guard, and 14 will enter into the Ohio Air National Guard. In the presence of their parents/guardians, and high school counselors, military leaders, city and business leaders, all 393 will be recognized on May 7, 2014 by ``Our Community Salutes of Northeast Ohio.''

In a few short weeks, these young men and women will join their classmates in celebration of their high school graduation. At a time when many of their peers are looking forward to pursuing vocational training or college degrees, or are uncertain about their future, these young men and women instead have chosen to dedicate themselves to military service in defense of our rights, our freedoms and our country. They should know that they have full support of this Senate Chamber, and of the American people, who are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead.

These 393 young men and women are the cornerstone of our liberty. It is thanks to their dedication and the dedication of an untold number of patriots just like them that we are able to meet here today, in the U.S. Senate, and openly debate the best solutions to the many diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom in a dangerous world. We are grateful to them, and we are grateful to their parents and their communities for instilling in them not only the mental and physical abilities our Armed Forces require, but more importantly the character, the values and the discipline that leads someone to put service to our Nation over self.

I would like to personally thank these 393 graduating seniors for their selflessness and the courage that they have shown by volunteering to risk their lives in defense of our Nation. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the 393 high school seniors.

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

Mr. President, I rise tonight at a time when we face a quiet crisis in this country. President Obama and many on the other side of the aisle tell us the economy has improved, we have turned a corner, we are out of the woods, but I can tell my colleagues too many Americans are being left behind. In fact, historic numbers of Americans are disconnected from work. It is a quiet crisis. It is affecting them and their families. It is affecting our economy in very fundamental ways. It is one of the reasons we haven't seen the economic growth we had hoped for because not enough Americans are involved in active work because so many are out of work. The unemployment numbers, by the way, don't show the degree of the problem. An unemployment number around 7 percent doesn't show the fact that a lot of folks have left the work force all together.

This crisis includes also 3.7 million long-term unemployed. These are people who have been out of work for 6 months or more. This is also at historic levels. During this recent recession and during this weak recovery over the last 5 years, we have had numbers of long-term unemployed, over 6 months, at historic levels. In fact, the number of long-term unemployed right now is higher than it has been during any recession in our Nation's history, except for the most recent one 5 years ago.

Second, we have a lot of people who have left looking for work all together. So a lot of these folks were long-term unemployed, and they have now given up looking for work. Some 10.5 million Americans aren't even counted in the unemployment numbers because they have given up looking for work. The economists call this the labor participation rate. It is at historic lows for men, going back to the 1940s. In other words, more men are out of work--and that means not working or not even looking for a job--than we have ever had as a percentage of our population since we started keeping track of these statistics in the 1940s.

For men and women combined, we can go back to the 1970s--the numbers are so low for the participation rate in work. That goes back to the Carter era, when we had double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, and double-digit interest rates. We have to go back to that economy that was cratering in order to see the numbers of people who are out of work, not looking for work, and not even trying.

So we have a real problem in this country, and we are not addressing it. To make matters worse, people are saying: Well, Rob, this is actually the baby boomers, and it is people retiring early, so it is not that bad. That is not true. To make matters worse, it is a lot of young people. There was a recent Brookings study that came out a couple weeks ago which indicates that actually a lot of the problem is young men, single men, who are choosing not to work or cannot find a job and, therefore, they drop out of the workforce altogether. Again, this is not reflected in the unemployment numbers. This is not even reflected in the long-term unemployment numbers.

Disappointment after disappointment for many of these workers leads them to give up looking for work altogether. These Americans feel as if what we are doing here in Washington does not really affect them and their lives. They feel as if we are not dealing with this issue, so the underemployed, the unemployed, the long-term unemployed--the folks who are so disconnected from work that they are not even looking for a job--they are looking at us in Washington saying: What are you going to do to help?

They are the reason I supported tonight this extension of unemployment insurance. Now, this was not exactly the legislation I wanted. But, also, it is not exactly the legislation that was brought to the floor. The other side of the aisle, the Democrats, brought legislation to the floor that was a long-term extension on an emergency basis. This is for people who have been out of work for over 26 weeks. This is the Federal addition to the State unemployment insurance that generally is in place for people for up to 26 weeks. The Democratic version was long-term--over a year. It also was not paid for, which would take us further into debt and deficit, which would hurt the economy. It also did not have any reforms.

The legislation that passed tonight with my vote--and some other Republicans--had three things. No. 1, it is

short term--5 months instead of a year. No. 2, it is paid for, so it does not take us further into debt and deficit. No. 3, it does have some reforms to try to make the unemployment system work better to help these people who are long-term unemployed who otherwise have very little prospect of getting gainful employment, being productive members of our economy.

In fact, there are some studies out there saying that only 10 to 15 percent of them would normally be likely to get a job once they are out of work for 6 months or more because of the resume gap, because of the skills gap. So we have in this legislation--that I will talk about later in more detail--some reforms that add some skills training for the long-term unemployed. The notion here is that there are jobs available out there, and there are a lot of people, as we talked about, who are out of work--or the long-term unemployed, in this case--but they do not have the skills to match the jobs that are out there. So the notion is to bring the skills and the jobs together to deal with the skills gap.

Most on my side of the aisle--all but, I think, six of us--were against this unemployment extension because they argued that, instead, we need progrowth policies to get this economy moving. I totally agree with them about the progrowth policies. The ultimate solution here is not another extension of unemployment insurance; it is to reform the program rather than just have another check, to add the skills training, which we will talk about in a second. We need to do more there, but we also have to do what Jack Kennedy used to talk about. President Kennedy said, famously: A rising tide lifts all boats.

We need a rising tide. We need to create more economic growth and opportunity, and there is a plan to do this. It is called the Jobs for America Plan. The Senate Republicans have all signed off on it. It has seven elements, all of which make a lot of sense.

One is to ensure, on health care, we actually reduce the cost, increase choice. The economy is hurting now because the costs are going up, not down, and sometimes dramatically.

Another is an all-of-the-above energy strategy, to use the energy here in the ground; having an all-of-the-above energy strategy to get America's economy going, moving our economy forward. We can do a lot more there.

Another is living within our means. The reason this unemployment insurance extension was paid for is because we Republicans insisted on it. Why? Because the debt and deficit are like a wet blanket over the economy. We do have to keep ourselves from going further into debt with our $17 trillion debt.

Another is having Tax Code reforms that are necessary to spur economic growth. Both on the individual side and the business side our Tax Code is antiquated and inefficient. It will help to give the economy a shot in the arm if we can reform the Tax Code.

Another deals with regulations, unshackling job creators, helping to ensure that regulations are sensible, that they are not making it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs and opportunity. This is something we should be doing on a bipartisan basis.

Another is increasing exports. That means jobs. This President, this administration, has not been able to move forward with any export agreements because the President has not been able to get trade promotion authority. In fact, some on the other side of the aisle have said he will not get it. That would be tragic for America's workers, for America's farmers, for the people who provide services, who want to push for more exports because they create good-paying jobs and good benefits.

Then, finally, and significantly, part of this Republican plan for jobs is to create a competitive workforce to close the skills gap. That is what we are talking about here with the unemployment insurance issue. We need to ensure that our workforce is meeting the needs of the 21st century--meaning a lot of technology jobs, even in manufacturing, advanced manufacturing, bioscience jobs, information technology jobs. Those jobs are out there, as I said earlier. But, unfortunately, the Federal Government has not done a good job in providing the skills, giving people the tools to access those jobs.

So we have made some steps in this legislation. The legislation we passed tonight ensures that job training reforms are part of long-term unemployment insurance. The reforms require officials to connect with the unemployed early in the process and provide important information they are now not getting about the skills and credentials that businesses in their area, in their region, are looking for.

We have also included provisions to strengthen the skills assessment process to ensure that the long-term unemployed have a better idea of the specific skills necessary to become more competitive in the job market. That assessment is really important. A lot of these folks are starting to give up hope. The assessment is important for them to understand where they are and where they can be.

These measures are intended to give the unemployed the opportunity to attain critical skills and credentials that are regionally relevant and nationally portable so they can access not only available jobs in their area but so that they can find other jobs around the country. There are some States, as you know, where you have unemployment as low as 3 percent, and other States where unemployment is as high as 9 percent. So people do need to know what the opportunities are, should they be able and willing to move.

So that is part of this unemployment extension we did tonight, and that is something that was put in place because of negotiations between Republicans and Democrats alike to ensure that, yes, it was paid for, and, yes, it was not long term--it was short term--and, third, that we did put some skills training in place. I want to thank Senator Jack Reed, Senator Dean Heller, and others who worked with us to ensure that was part of this package.

But, folks, that is just the beginning. We have to do a lot more in terms of ensuring that our workforce programs in the Federal Government are meeting the needs of the 21st century.

So part of the Republican jobs plan is to say: Let's take the next step. By the way, there is a commitment from both sides of the aisle, from the people who worked this out, to work during this short-term extension to try to increase the opportunities to provide people the tools they need.

We have big problems, as I said. We have a lot of people who are long-term unemployed. It is at historic levels. We have historic levels of people who are disconnected from work altogether, and yet we have jobs that are out there and available.

They say there are 3.9 million jobs around the country currently available and unfilled--3.9 million jobs. That means about 25 percent of those who are out of the workforce could have an opportunity for a job if they had the skills and had the ability to meet the requirements for those jobs.

In Ohio, we have over 100,000 jobs available. You can go on the Web site and see them. These are not just part-time or minimum-wage positions. According to a recent study, Ohio is third--behind only California and Texas--in skilled factory job openings, full-time jobs with benefits that often turn into long-term careers.

The problem of chronic unemployment is holding back our economy. By not having the people to fill those jobs, the economy is not reaching its potential. In fact, some of those jobs are going overseas to find those skilled workers. The Manufacturing Institute recently concluded that 74 percent of manufacturers are experiencing workforce shortages or skills deficiency that keeps them from expanding their operations; 74 percent of manufacturers are not expanding plants and equipment and creating more jobs, as they could, because they do not have the workforce.

So I view this unemployment insurance debate as an opportunity--an opportunity to talk about this issue, an opportunity to put in place some initial reforms, some first steps for more skills assessment, more training, to encourage people to get the credentials they need to get a job. But it is only the first step. We should do much, much more.

The Federal Government is already very involved, by the way, in work retraining--not in a very productive way but very involved. There are 47 different Federal workforce training programs spread over 7, 8 or 9 departments

and agencies, often overlapping. Often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. It costs us, by the way, as taxpayers about $15 billion a year. So about $15 billion a year is going into worker retraining. Yet look at the results--again, record numbers of the long-term unemployed, record numbers of men disconnected from work. Something is not working.

The Government Accountability Office found that very little is known about the effectiveness of these 47 programs. They have said, unbelievably, that only five of these Federal programs have conducted an impact study of their efforts since 2004. So 47 programs and only 5 have conducted the kind of performance measures you would expect the government to do to be sure the taxpayers' money is being spent right and that you certainly would be doing in the private sector.

The GAO is kind of generous in its assessment because those millions of unfilled jobs and millions more struggling workers are as incriminating an indictment of our worker training programs as any impact study could ever be.

This is the story I hear all the time. Back home in Ohio, when I talk to workers, when I talk to businesses, when I talk to educators, people are frustrated. People are seeing these Federal dollars being spent but not for actual training. What is unbelievable to me is recent data shows us that the number of credentials people are getting through these Federal workforce training programs is actually going down, not up--at a time when it is clear that credentials are a key way to get a job.

It is unfair to employers who have open positions that they cannot find qualified candidates to fill them. It is unfair to taxpayers who send money to Washington believing the government is going to be a good steward of those funds, and it is not. And, of course, it is unfair to the millions of Americans who want to build a better life for themselves and for their families, but they need the tools.

A lot of jobs were lost in this last recession. Unfortunately, I believe a lot of them are not coming back. But other jobs are being created. But, again, they are jobs that require a higher level of skill. We have to be sure we are doing a better job providing people with those tools to get the skills they need. It is part of the plan that Senate Republicans are talking about.

A small step was taken tonight with the unemployment insurance extension. I do not think we necessarily explained it very well to all of our colleagues, but it was part of what happened tonight on the floor of the Senate. I am hopeful over the next few months we will take the next important step, which is actually to change the way these Federal programs work so they are more effective at dealing with this crisis.

I have a specific proposal that I like. It is called the CAREER Act. The CAREER Act--you can look at it on line. Go to portman.senate.gov. My cosponsor is Michael Bennet, who spoke here earlier tonight. He is a Democrat from Colorado. He is a former education superintendent. He understands we need to change these programs to make them more efficient. To incentivize success, we have performance measures in our proposal, for instance. We do need to streamline and consolidate these programs. We also need to be sure we are rewarding job training providers that produce measurable results in actual job placement. It seems it is a pretty simple concept, but it is not happening now, as the GAO told us.

The unemployment extension, in my view, buys us a couple more months. But that is time where we ought to be doing the hard work to ensure that workers have the skills they need to compete in this global economy. Again, companies look globally for workers these days-- particularly larger companies. If we are not providing the skilled workforce here, our economy is not as productive as it could be, not meeting its potential, the rising tide is not lifting all boats because it is not rising. But we are also going to lose jobs overseas where there is more focus on the STEM disciplines, on engineering and math, on skills training.

We have to do a much better job at the Federal Government level, working with the States, working with the private sector. One thing we do in the CAREER Act is we connect the Federal funds with the actual private-sector jobs that out there to ensure we are getting a better result--not training people for jobs that are not even available.

So let's spend these next few months working on more strategies to help folks get jobs. Let's work on all of this because we need to have a growing economy. But with regard to the training part, let's fix a system that is not serving the unemployed. It is not serving the taxpayer. Let's deal with this crisis. Let's restore hope and opportunity to America's workers.

With that, I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor Myles Eckert, an 8- year-old boy from Waterville, OH, whose simple act of generosity has led to national attention. Myles found a $20 bill in a restaurant parking lot and, rather than save it for himself, gave it to Ohio National Guard Airman Lt. Frank Dailey, who was there having dinner with his family.

Myles wrote a heartfelt note about his father, Army SGT Andy Eckert, who was killed in Iraq just 5 weeks after Myles was born. The note read:

Dear Soldier, My dad was a soldier. He's in heaven now. I

found this 20 dollars in the parking lot when we got here. We

like to pay it forward in my family. It's your lucky day!

Thank you for your service, Myles Eckert, a Gold Star kid.

This story of Myles Eckert's thoughtfulness was covered by news organizations across the country. Myles was a guest on a national talk show and asked that any donations be given to the Snowball Express, a national military children's charity that hosts a weeklong vacation around the holidays for Gold Star children--the military name for children who have lost a parent in the line of duty. An initial $20,000 donation to the Snowball Express was made in Myles' name, and a Dallas, TX, company offered to match every donation up to $1 million made through Memorial Day, 2014.

Myles Eckert did a simple act of kindness and found out just how far ``paying it forward'' can go. Today, I would like to recognize him for his heartfelt and noble act.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the Center of Science and Industry, COSI, located in central Ohio as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. In 1964, COSI opened its doors as a hands-on center of science education. Fifty years later, COSI has witnessed tremendous growth and expansion as well as national recognition. COSI has welcomed more than 30 million visitors from all 50 States and in 2008 COSI was named America's No. 1 science center for families by Parents Magazine.

COSI has collaborated with schools and organizations across Ohio to provide interactive STEM education in order to prepare our children for the future, and inspire the innovators of tomorrow. Part of COSI's mission is to ``motivate a desire toward a better understanding of science, industry, health, and history . . . for the enrichment of the individual and for a more rewarding life on our planet, Earth.'' They accomplish this mission through partnerships with organizations including WOSU@COSI, the only working television station in a science center, the Columbus Historical Society, and Battelle.

I have visited COSI a number of times, starting with my children when they were in grade school. I have been able to see firsthand the great experience it provides to visitors. I am pleased to honor 50 years of success as COSI continues to lead the way in science education in Ohio.