Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and career of Woody Hayes, who touched the lives of many Ohioans through his leadership and coaching legacy. Woody Hayes was born on February 14, 1913, in Clifton, OH. On February 14, 2013, Coach Hayes would have celebrated his 100th birthday. After graduating college, he joined the Navy in 1941 to serve his country during World War II. He later received his master's degree from the Ohio State University in 1948. In 1951 Mr. Hayes started his coaching career at the Ohio State University, where he continued coaching until 1978, when he retired.

Woody Hayes is known for his outstanding winning record. Under his leadership, the Buckeyes won 205 games, 5 postseason bowl games, 13 Big Ten Championships, 3 consensus national championships--1954, 1957 and 1968--and 2 other nonconsensus national titles--1961 and 1970. Hayes was elected College Coach of the Year in 1957 and 1975 and served as president of the National Football Coaches Association. He also coached 3 Heisman Trophy winners and 56 first team All-American players.

Woody Hayes' real legacy was the way he impacted the lives of those around him. He was known to take personal interest in the lives of his players and their academic careers. In 1979 the Ohio State University created a scholarship in his honor, to help college athletes continue their education. Though Woody Hayes is no longer with us, I am pleased to honor his great legacy and all the lives he has touched.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the King Arts Complex for 25 years of dedicated service to central Ohio. Named after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the complex's mission is to preserve, celebrate, and teach African-American cultural and historic heritage while developing a greater understanding among all people.

In 1987, when the King Arts Complex opened, it brought new life to a once vibrant area. I have visited the King Arts Complex and attended a celebration in honor of Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr., in the Pythian Theatre in 2010. I have seen firsthand how the King Arts Complex has helped revitalize the community by offering cultural and educational activities for local youth through programs that include dance, theatre, music, and literary arts.

The King Arts Complex is an asset to central Ohio and I congratulate everyone who was involved in making its first 25 years a success.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember Barry M. Horstman of Cincinnati, OH, for his dedication to his community and distinguished career in journalism. Mr. Horstman passed away suddenly while working in the newsroom of the Cincinnati Enquirer on February 25, 2013.

Known as a ``newsman's newsman,'' Barry Horstman developed a reputation as a tough but fair investigative reporter who showed his commitment to his community by being relentless in his work.

Horstman's passion for journalism was inspired by his fourth grade teacher who encouraged him to write. In high school, he started a column for the Western Hills High School newspaper called ``Straight from the Horstman's Mouth.'' He went on to earn a journalism degree from The Ohio State University.

While a student, Horstman worked at the Cincinnati Post, jumpstarting his long and fruitful career in journalism. Horstman's career included positions as a Washington correspondent for Scripps Howard News Service, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, a reporter for the Cincinnati Post, and a writer and supervisor for the Las Vegas Sun before he returned to his hometown to join the Cincinnati Enquirer in 2008.

Barry covered me off and on for over 20 years, and even when I might have wished his story had been written a little differently, I never questioned his professionalism as a journalist, his commitment to reporting the facts as he saw them, and his decency and fairness as a person.

A local history buff, Horstman wrote profiles of local Cincinnati area newsmakers that were compiled into a book published in 1999: 100 Who Made a Difference: Greater Cincinnatians Who Made a Mark on the 20th Century. He was known for his high energy and enthusiasm in all endeavors, especially for taking fantastic vacations around the globe.

Horstman grew up on the west side of Cincinnati, raised in an apartment above the Glenmore Bowl, the bowling alley managed and later owned by his father, Les. He was an avid runner and a talented bowler.

I honor Barry Horstman for his dedication to Cincinnati and contributions to the field of journalism.

Madam President, today I wish to congratulate Kalmbach Feeds, a family-owned company, on 50 years of serving Ohio farms and agribusiness. Kalmbach Farms was founded in 1963 by Milton and Ruth Kalmbach,

and their goal was to ``create a new way of doing business.'' Starting the business with only one truck and one employee, the Kalmbach family opened a mix-and-grind plant in Upper Sandusky, OH. That operation has grown into the large commercial farm it is today.

Kalmbach Farms has been on the forefront of feed production. The farm manufactures and sells nutritional products for all livestock and poultry species and has been devoted to providing customers feed at a fair price. The Kalmbach family has been able to expand its business model to include nutritional products for mink, wildlife, swine, and pets. With branches in both Michigan and Indiana, Kalmbach Farms' products are regional leaders in the animal nutrition industry and are distributed in several States, including Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, West Virginia, Illinois, and New York.

Kalmbach Farms is now run by Milton and Ruth's son, Paul Kalmbach. This proud Ohio company employs over 250 people, and since the business began there has not been a single layoff. Kalmbach Feeds is continuing to look to the future by expanding the business and offering more employment opportunities for individuals interested in agriculture. I would like to congratulate the Kalmbach family on their 50 years of quality service.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Armaly Brands on the 100th anniversary of its iconic Brillo pad product. The Brillo pad was introduced on January 13, 1913. In 1921, the manufacturing of the product was moved to a factory in London, OH, where it has been produced ever since. Brillo was a revolutionary product, as Americans transitioned from heavy cast iron cookware to aluminum pots and pans in the early 20th century.

The Brillo pad has been featured in motion pictures, songs, and households nationwide. In 1964, the Brillo pad reached the height of its cultural popularity when Andy Warhol created a series of shipping cartons highlighting the iconic logo.

Besides being a staple of the modern kitchen, the Brillo pad has also brought jobs and manufacturing to Ohio. Brillo's London factory employs over 50 Ohioans whose products are shipped around the world.

Since 2010, Brillo has been owned by Armaly Brands of Walled Lake, MI. I would like to congratulate Armaly Brands and the Brillo pad on this 100th anniversary milestone.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 10.

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

Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment. We just voted on the Violence Against Women Act amendment for trafficking offered by Senator Leahy. This is an amendment that actually deals with the underlying legislation. It is really a clarifying amendment.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Blumenthal, Ayotte, Collins, Brown, Cochran, Rubio, Alexander, and Gillibrand. It has to do with offering protection and services to victims of sex trafficking under VAWA. This simply says under section 302 of VAWA that we ensure sex trafficking is covered.

Right now youth and children who are exposed to domestic violence, dating violence, or sexual assault or stalking are covered but not sex trafficking. I think it is consistent with the amendment we just passed. It is also an important clarification of the underlying bill.

There are about 300,000 young Americans the FBI says are at risk today. This is a commonsense approach, and I would hope that all Senators on both sides of the aisle would agree that sex trafficking should be covered by this act.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mrs. Sandy Sheehy of Oregon, OH upon her retirement from the Rossford Public Library after 40 years of public service as a children's librarian.

Mrs. Sheehy was raised in Ida, MI and received her master's degree at Western Michigan University. Shortly after graduating, she began working at the Oregon Branch Library, a branch location of the Toledo- Lucas County Public Library system. Mrs. Sheehy worked for the Toledo- Lucas County Public Library for her first 10 years of service as the children's librarian and then spent the next 30 years as the children's librarian at the Rossford Public Library, where she helped plan and operate children's programs. In addition, she was responsible for purchasing children's books and multimedia collections as well as purchasing other services for the library.

Over the years, Mrs. Sheehy discovered and developed many trends at the library that sparked excitement and interest in children and their parents. Her dedication to her profession is shown by the respect she has earned from her coworkers and from the Rossford community.

Throughout her career, Sandy Sheehy has made many contributions through her civic involvement throughout the Toledo, OH area. Upon her retirement, Mrs. Sheehy plans to spend time with her family and friends and travel with her husband, Mike Sheehy.

I would like to congratulate Mrs. Sandy Sheehy of Oregon, OH on her 40 years of service to the children of Northwest Ohio and recognize her for developing a positive atmosphere of learning for the many children and families she has assisted and inspired during her career.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Bishop Paul Alexander Bowers, who has served as the presiding Bishop of Greater Emanuel Apostolic Temple since 1957. Bishop Bowers celebrated his 55th pastoral anniversary on February 1, 2013, in my hometown of Cincinnati,

Madam President, I would like to speak on the amendment, if I could.

Earlier this week, my colleague Senator Blumenthal spoke about an amendment we are offering to the Violence Against Women Act, and it is an amendment that has to do with child sex trafficking. I am pleased to join him in offering this important amendment and talking about it today.

This is really a technical correction to the underlying legislation to enhance the safety of our youth and our children in the area of sex trafficking.

Last November, Senator Blumenthal and I started the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking. We have been working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and have been making bipartisan progress on this issue. In general, we are working to raise awareness of human trafficking, and with regard to the underlying bill, the issue of child sex trafficking.

This issue cuts across all party and philosophical lines. It is something that is more fundamental. It is about who we are as a people, and how we respect and protect basic human dignity. It is important to acknowledge that human trafficking is not something we hear about that happens overseas; it happens right here in America. Unfortunately, human trafficking is an issue present in communities in Ohio and Connecticut--where Senator Blumenthal is from--and in all of our States.

Children and youth are among the most vulnerable individuals and are at the greatest risk. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there are now nearly 300,000 young Americans who are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking.

The Department of Justice reports that between 2008 and 2010, 83 percent of sex trafficking victims found within the United States were U.S. citizens. By the way, 40 percent of those cases involve sexual exploitation of children. Human trafficking has a devastating impact on so many Americans across this country.

One of the reasons we lack data on the definitive number of victims is that there are limited programs and resources available to serve these children nationwide, and this problem is not limited to large cities or metropolitan areas.

In Ohio, the 2012 Human Trafficking Commission Report surveyed more than 300 Ohio youth victims of sex trafficking. The report found that 40 percent were also victims of sexual abuse; 47 percent of the victims surveyed confirmed they had been raped 1 year before being trafficked.

Dr. Celia Williamson, from Toledo, OH, is one of the key individuals responsible for this report and continues to work to strengthen the response to sex trafficking in Ohio. Dr. Williamson developed the program, RESCUE CHILD, which educates first responders and everyday citizens on how to recognize the signs of child sex trafficking.

This is an important issue for Ohio. Toledo, OH, is among the highest in the country in terms of prosecution and investigations of sex trafficking. Dr. Williamson has helped to educate folks to identify signs of sex trafficking and high vulnerability. Some of the key signs of high vulnerability to sex trafficking are youth who have run away from home and children who are victims of sexual assault, emotional abuse, child abuse, or neglect. In order to fight human trafficking, we have to prioritize services to these vulnerable youth and connect victims of sex trafficking with appropriate resources.

So this amendment is really just a technical amendment to ensure that we protect these child victims of sex trafficking and provide them with what is necessary to fully recover from this devastating trauma.

Section 302 of the reauthorization of VAWA is appropriating titled ``Creating Hope Through Outreach, Options, Services, and Education for Children and Youth.'' The intent of this section is to ``develop, expand, and strengthen victim-centered interventions and services that target victim-centered youth who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.''

Section 302 omits the term ``sex trafficking'' except in the context of a ``co-occurrence'' with one of these other factors I mentioned. So in order to be covered under this section, victims would have to be victims of sexual assault or another violation as well as victims of sex trafficking.

The omission of ``sex trafficking'' seems to be inadvertent because it is inconsistent with the similar sections of the reauthorization. One example of this is found in Section 902, which provides grants to Indian tribunal governments for the safety of women and youth. This section provides for ``services to address the needs of youth who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sex trafficking, and stalking.'' So sex trafficking is in one section but not in another. We want to clarify that being a victim of sex trafficking alone should be sufficient to be covered under this act.

I thank Senator Blumenthal for his commitment to this issue, and I thank my colleagues, including the ranking member and the chairman who are here on the floor today. I hope to offer this amendment at the appropriate point in the process, but I wanted to speak a little bit about it and explain why Senator Blumenthal and I would like to offer this. Again, we hope it will be a noncontroversial, technical correction to ensure that sex trafficking is included among those provisions that are listed in Section 302.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer first a commonsense amendment to begin to address our Nation's unprecedented national debt. It is hurting jobs in our economy today and is placing an immoral burden on our kids and our grandkids. This is called the Dollar For Dollar Deficit Reduction Act. It ensures every time we raise the debt limit we cut spending by the same amount over a 10-year period.

We all know the growth of the national debt is not sustainable. In the past 4 years our national debt has risen by $6 trillion and is projected to add another $9 trillion over the next decade. These numbers are huge, too big to comprehend. So let's put it this way: If we don't do something, we are really in trouble. Between the end of 2008 and 2022--so 9 years from now--the average household share of the national debt will have risen from $90,000 a household to $160,000 a household. That is how big the debt will get. Today, it is about $130,000 per household.

We know we need to do something. Democrats and Republicans alike talk about it a lot. The debt limit is an opportunity to have this debate. Future

decades will bring even more debt, with the Congressional Budget Office--a nonpartisan group here in Congress--now projecting the debt will top 200 percent of our economy in 25 years. Again, this is unprecedented. It is about 100 percent of our economy right now.

And, by the way, the projection that the debt will be 200 percent of our economy in 25 years is a rosy scenario that assumes we will have peace, prosperity, and relatively low interest rates. I think we can all agree that saddling our children and grandchildren with this enormous debt is not just bad economics, it is immoral.

In reining in the debt, the Congressional Budget Office makes clear that spending is driving future deficits. When we look at the future deficits, it is spending that is creating a major problem. Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, revenues will surpass their historic average, which is about 18 percent of our economy, as soon as the economy begins to recover. Spending, which has been historically 20 percent of our economy, has already jumped to over 23 percent of our economy and is projected to rise to 30, 40, 50 percent of GDP over the next several decades. So clearly we have a spending problem.

The amendment I offer today will ensure that debt limit increases are matched with equal cuts in Federal program spending over the next 10 years--so for a decade. There are no gimmicks, no timing shifts, but these will be real cuts in the growth of Federal spending.

This chart shows what the results of this would be for the country. The top lines are spending. This is the blue line. The bottom line, the red line, is revenue. So here we are today, 2013. Again, the spending as a percent of our economy is just over 23 percent. If we continue to go the way we are going, what will happen, based on these relatively rosy scenarios about our future, is we will see a dip in the spending as a result of our economy and then it goes up and quickly begins to climb further from that over the coming decades. Revenues, again under the current scenario, continue to grow to the point they go above the historic 18 percent. Here it indicates that by 2022 they would be at 19.1 percent. Spending, under the proposal we have before us today-- this amendment, the dollar for dollar amendment--goes to 19.6 percent, so just about at the 20-percent historic average.

This of course means we are very close to balance. And it means, again, there is a reasonable result to this, which ends up with spending being very close to the historic average, revenue coming above its historic average, and again we are back on track toward fiscal discipline and toward fiscal sanity. That means we can have a stronger economy--the kind of robust economy we all hope for--bringing back the jobs and not leaving to our kids and grandkids such an enormous debt and deficit.

We would still have a deficit here, a small one, and this would be positioning the deficit to get to balance because it would be such a relatively small deficit compared to what we have had in the past. If enacted, the result will be about $3 trillion in savings over the next decade. This is roughly consistent with what other groups have talked about, including the Simpson-Bowles Commission and others. Given the $44 trillion in spending projected over the next decade, this $3 trillion in savings should not be too much to ask. In fact, simply limiting spending growth to about 3 percent per year would accomplish this same result.

So that is essentially what is being required here when you say there will be a dollar-for-dollar reduction in spending over 10 years every time you raise the debt limit by $1. The result is that, again, by 2022 the deficit will fall to less than 1 percent of GDP--very close to balance. The debt as a percentage of the economy would actually be declining as well, and it actually declines to the point where, according to the Simpson-Bowles Commission and others, it would be 60- some percent of the economy, which many view as having stabilized our debt. Again, we have a lot of work to do even at that point, but at least it stabilizes it. It actually declines by about 19 points as a percentage of the economy from its peak in terms of our debt. Future generations would be spared this crushing debt and the economic stagnation we otherwise will face if Washington does nothing.

Some may contend that the debt limit is the wrong place to have this spending debate. I have heard this a lot as I have been promoting this idea. I have to respectfully disagree. The debt limit is about all that has worked. The debt limit is not just about paying past bills, it also presents an opportunity to talk about the future--what should our bills be in the future? It is not about, as the President often says, paying our past bills. Those should be paid. It is about what bills we are going to rack up going forward. We have to make a change. If we don't, the country is headed toward bankruptcy.

Furthermore, nearly every single deficit reduction bill over the past 28 years has been linked to the debt limit. In fact, I would say every single one of the significant deficit reduction packages in the last few decades has been linked to the debt limit. It is all that has worked around here.

In 1985--there are some Members in the Senate today who were here then, and they will tell you that the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill, which came out of the Senate, helped reduce the deficit. It was attached to what? A debt limit bill. Since that time, the three largest deficit reduction packages in the 1990s--1990, 1993, and 1997, including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act--were all linked to what? A debt limit discussion. So it is really all that has worked.

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, which a lot of Democrats were very supportive of, was in 2010. That came out of a debt limit discussion.

Finally, of course, the debt limit was the impetus for the Budget Control Act just 2 years ago, when this Congress made a commitment to save $2.1 trillion over the decade. So just 2 years ago, we agreed to this dollar-for-dollar provision, and it was done as part of the debt limit.

As we discuss the dollar-for-dollar amendment pending today, we have to remember that this is really where the idea came from. Dollar-for- dollar came out of the Budget Control Act. So for folks who attempt to label this idea as untenable, too aggressive, or without precedent, remember that the dollar-for-dollar legislation passed only 2 years ago with only 95 Democratic votes in the House and 45 of the 51 Democrats here in the Senate voting yes. So the idea certainly has precedent, and given the results we talked about earlier, it is a commonsense way to address the debt limit debate today and in the future if this body is going to be serious about getting Washington's spending and debt under control.

By the way, it wouldn't apply to this first short-term debt limit extension. This would apply to the debt limit extension that we all hope will be a longer term agreement with Republicans and Democrats, including, as the chair and the ranking member of the Finance Committee just talked about, tax reform and entitlement reform--working together to solve these problems. This would provide the impetus to do that.

So whether that is in 3 months or, as some are suggesting, 6 months from now, given the fact that Treasury will be able to use some authorities to help extend that debt limit, that is when this would apply. It would not apply to this short-term debt limit, but it is putting the discipline in place now that we employed only 2 years ago to be able to get real savings for our country.

The debt limit is also an important tool for deficit reduction because it is all we have had. And when you think about it, we haven't had budgets. The only recent restraint came in the context of the debt limit and dollar-for-dollar reductions in the Budget Control Act. This is partly because the Senate has not passed a budget, as we all know and we all have heard about, in over 3 years. I understand the majority is committed to passing a budget in the Senate this year. I commend them for that. I hope they will. But reconciling it with the House, of course, will be a challenge, and future years also remain uncertain. So in the absence of a budget, the fact remains that the debt limit has been the effective tool we have used.

By the way, the fact also remains that now nearly two-thirds of all

spending is not even subject to the budget. Why? Because it is on autopilot. It is not annually appropriated. It is the mandatory spending. So even if we have a budget, which I hope we do, still, the debt limit is the most likely way for us to get at the bigger picture since 62 percent of spending is on autopilot--or mandatory--and not subject to the annual appropriations process that would be part of the budget agreement. This is why the debt limit is likely to remain the most successful tool for deficit reduction.

Common sense tells us that while Washington pays its past bills, it also has to take steps to reduce its future bills. Based on one poll I saw, 72 percent of Americans agree that when you increase the debt limit, it should be matched by equal cuts, dollar-for-dollar--72 percent of Americans. It is common sense. We did it 2 years ago. It leads us to a result that seems reasonable.

Most people think we need to get spending under control. The revenues are going to go up based on the CBO projections here, and we get to virtually a balance over 10 years if we put this in place, with the permitting of about 3 percent growth in spending every year. So this is not an unreasonable result. It is a sensible solution. Congress did it a couple years ago.

I hope my colleagues will join me on a bipartisan basis to say that with regard to the longer term debt limit extension we are facing somewhere in the 3- to 6-month period, that we put in place this discipline and then allow the committees to do their work. We should go back to regular order. The Finance Committee chairman has made this point repeatedly, and so has the ranking member. Other members have. We need hearings. We need to have an open process. We don't want these last-minute bills that people haven't had a chance to read and staff hasn't had a chance to review.

This would put us in that position--knowing that we have this discipline in place, we can achieve this, and we must achieve this for the sake of our kids and grandkids. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I now would like to offer a second amendment. I have been asked to offer these two amendments together. The second amendment is another idea because it doesn't have to do with the debt limit per se, but it has to do with how we avoid government shutdowns. This is bipartisan legislation, and it is a bipartisan idea whose time I believe has come.

Every year since 1997 and in all but 2 years since 1985, Congress has reached the October 1 fiscal year-end without doing all the appropriations bills. Think about that. Every year since 1997, we have not been able to reach agreement on all the appropriations bills, and only twice since 1985 have we ended the fiscal year with having all the appropriations bills done.

What is the result? In some years there has been a relatively quick vote on what is called a continuing resolution to continue government spending in those areas where we haven't completed our work. In other years the result has been a real showdown, with the threat of government shutdown. And then in some years we have had an actual government shutdown. In fact, it has happened way too often, and the reason is that, again, we haven't been able to come together as Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate, working with the President, to put forward these appropriations bills in regular order, and so we face these shutdowns. And we actually have faced some last- minute budget bills, many of which are full of surprises because Members haven't had a chance to read them and staff has not had a chance to review them.

These shutdowns, by the way, when we have had them, have created real problems. Americans hoping to travel abroad find that their passport applications can't be processed. Disease surveillance ceases at the Centers for Disease Control. Recruitment of Border Patrol agents stops. Families planning to go on vacations to national parks find their destinations closed. It is not a good way to run a government, and I think we should avoid those shutdowns.

Some make the reasonable argument that these shutdowns are an acceptable price to pay if they lead to spending cuts. I understand that is an argument out there, but in fact, as I look at it, I think the opposite has occurred. The 1996 government shutdown that a lot of people talk about produced such a large backlash that it seems as if a lot of lawmakers decided to abandon spending restraint altogether. A proof point might be that after that 1996 shutdown, nondefense discretionary spending nearly doubled over the next decade. So it seems to me as though the case for spending restraint was harmed, not helped, by the 1996 government shutdown.

The last-minute budget bill that usually results from the threat of government shutdown tends to have a lot of surprises in it. It is a real problem because over the years Congress has found itself just hours away from a government shutdown, often forced to vote on these thousand-plus page bills--an omnibus spending bill that folks have not had a chance to read and our staffs haven't sufficiently reviewed. It is not the fault of our Appropriations committees, which do their best under tight deadlines. I think it is the fault of these artificial deadlines themselves.

With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, we could all use more time to better understand what we are voting on. This bipartisan amendment would solve these problems.

For all regular programs or activities whose appropriations bills have not been approved--whether it is all the bills or whether it is only one bill--the End Government Shutdown Act would automatically continue the current level of spending, no significant disruption, no crisis for citizens, no furloughed employees, no rush to approve a last-minute budget deal that people haven't had a chance to look at.

Yet we don't want these continuing resolutions to take the pressure off lawmakers to complete their work, so after 120 days there would be a 1-percent reduction in spending. It would be across the board in a normal year. Because the new fiscal year is October 1, this would mean lawmakers would have until January 29--well after the holiday break--to complete their work on the appropriations bills.

And this year, should Washington fail to come to an agreement on the continuing resolution, spending would remain at whatever the current level of spending is for those first 120 days.

Under this amendment, after the 120-day period, spending levels on any remaining unfinished bills would continue to be reduced across the board 1 percent every 90 days. I doubt that would be necessary because I think the appropriators of the House and Senate would come together to solve the problems. But every 90 days, there would be an additional 1 percent reduction until the appropriations bills for the yearlong continuing resolution have been enacted.

These eventual small cuts are designed to keep both sides at the bargaining table. They aren't so small as to be irrelevant, but they are not so large as to gut any programs. Priorities of both Republicans and Democrats would be subject to the same across-the-board cuts, and both parties, therefore, would have an incentive to come to an agreement to fully fund the priority programs and reduce funding for lower priorities.

This bipartisan amendment may not be each lawmaker's idea of perfect. It is certainly not mine. I would rather get all the appropriations bills done, but that is not what is happening. But we should all agree that it improves upon the current situation where we bounce from crisis to crisis, worried about government shutdowns as well as the rushed bills we have to vote on to avoid shutdown. The American people want us to complete our work in a logical way, and this amendment helps us to do that.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense, bipartisan approach.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 8

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

Madam President, we had a debate earlier on this. This is the Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act. It makes all the sense in the world.

Here we have a $16 trillion national debt, now exceeding $130,000 per household in America. We are told by the Congressional Budget Office that there is $9 trillion more coming over the next decade.

We have to make this difference here on this bill. We have to take this opportunity to ensure that we are, in fact, beginning to reduce spending, getting this under control, as we once again are asked to extend the debt limit.

This would not apply to this particular short-term debt limit, by the way; it would set up the discipline for the next debt limit, which is anywhere from 3 to 6 months from now.

Now is the time for us to come together as Republicans and Democrats and determine how we indeed reform the entitlement programs, put tax reform in place, go through regular order in the Finance Committee, as the chairman and others have called for, to ensure that we can get this under control.

It is a commonsense proposal. We did it 2 years ago. Most Democrats and most Republicans here on the floor supported it in the past. About 95 Democrats in the House have also supported it. It is a dollar-for- dollar reduction over 10 years as we raise the debt limit.

Madam President, this amendment is a commonsense amendment that would end government shutdowns as well as keep us from facing these last-minute budget deals. For all regular programs or activities for which an appropriation bill has not been approved, the End Government Shutdowns Act would automatically continue funding--no significant disruption, no crisis for citizens, no furloughed employees, and no rush to approve a budget agreement that folks simply haven't read.

It doesn't take pressure off lawmakers altogether, however, because it forces us to complete our work by saying that after 120 days, spending would be reduced by one percentage point and then every 90 days by one more percentage point. It would force the administration, Congress, and Members of both parties to come together to make sure we have regular order and we have a process by which we have to get appropriations bills done, which we haven't been doing around here.

Instead of bouncing from crisis to crisis worrying about government shutdowns and having to vote on rush bills that Members haven't read and staff haven't had time to review, this is a more sensible and logical way to proceed. The American people expect us to do it and I hope we get support from both sides of the aisle on this bipartisan approach.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Theodore ``Ted'' Harbison Gardner. He was a devoted husband, father, a proud veteran of the U.S. Navy and a consummate

community volunteer whose contributions will have long lasting impacts in the Greater Cincinnati community, and beyond.

Born and raised in Hillsboro, OR, Mr. Gardner was the only child of Vesey Gardner, a prominent community leader and a lumber company owner, and Ruth Gardner, a popular singer. He is a graduate of Oregon State University.

A proud and decorated veteran of World War II, Mr. Gardner withdrew from college to serve in the U.S. Navy the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He survived one of the largest and most brutal battles in history--The Battle off Samar--earning his unit aboard the USS Kalinin Bay the Presidential Unit Citation, one of the Navy's highest honors.

Ted was an active member of the U.S. Navy League, The Hornet Foundation, and was a member of the advisory board of the Warbird Museum. He was passionate about the importance of oral history and personally interviewed over 150 World War II veterans and recorded and videotaped their stories for the Cincinnati Public Library and for the U.S. Library of Congress.

Following his graduation from Oregon State University, Mr. Gardner got a job with a lumber distributor in Columbus, OH and then later moved to Cincinnati, where he and his wife, Naomi, raised their three children. Mr. Gardner changed careers in the 1970s and worked as a local art dealer until he retired.

Ted was a 30-year member of the Cincinnati Rotary Club, where he was involved in programs to welcome international students studying at area universities and where he participated in events benefiting children with disabilities and youth in government.

A talented musician, Mr. Gardner shared his vocal talents as a member of the Rotary chorus, the choir of the Church of the Redeemer and the Cincinnati May Festival Chorus, where he served as a board member. For 25 years, he sang all four verses of ``Taps'' in his rich bass voice on Veterans Day at the public library.

Ted was an historian, a lover of art and literature, a musician and an avid sports enthusiast. He is greatly missed, and his extraordinary legacy and giving spirit will not be forgotten.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the legislation before us and in support of the comments my Independent colleague from Connecticut just made which had to do with the Magnitsky provision, which I also support. I heard my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, talking about it passionately earlier. It is an important part of this legislation. But with regard to the trade part of the legislation, I would like to say that I think this is also a great opportunity for us. I see my colleague from Maryland here who, along with Senator McCain, has taken the lead on the Magnitsky provision encouraging better human rights in Russia, and I think we will see over time that this will have an impact globally.

With regard to the trade side of this debate we are having today, I hope we all recognize that one of the great, untapped opportunities for our economy and for adding jobs is to expand exports. We have a great, untapped potential here because America still is not exporting at the level it should be. We do face stubbornly high unemployment. We do have stagnant growth rates. We are looking at some tough economic numbers even as we head toward the fiscal cliff which could make it even worse. So we need to do all we can to ensure that our workers and our farmers have access to the 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our borders. That adds jobs. When companies consider whether they are going to get into the export business or not, which again creates opportunity here, they want to know if they are going to be treated with certainty, predictability, and fairness in the marketplace. Exporters need to know that if a country doesn't play by the rules, then that country will then face consequences. Those consequences really are what the World Trade Organization is all about. That is why this discussion is so important, because by today or tomorrow, voting to authorize permanent normal trade relations with Russia, we then can take advantage of the World Trade Organization rules as they relate to Russia and to our trade with them.

Russia joined the WTO on August 22, and the United States was a big part of that accession. We worked with Russia for 18 years to ensure that they were willing to go along with certain fairness provisions on trade to be able to enter the WTO, and we need to be sure now that we can take advantage of those provisions. Without passing this legislation, America and our farmers and our workers could get left behind. By joining it, Russia did agree to abide by a certain set of common rules, and when they break those rules, other countries can then take them to court--the World Trade Organization--and help hold their feet to the fire.

It means Russia will be required to better protect intellectual property rights, which is a major concern for U.S. companies. It means Russia must treat fairly the highly technical services sector where the United States has a great opportunity, including telecommunications, insurance, energy services, and retail services. There we have a lot of competitive advantages and we are looking for a level playing field. It means they have to give rules-based treatment to our agricultural exports so they are not trumped by internal Russian agricultural politics. It means Russia has to improve its transparency and the rulemaking process so regulations are not taking place without an adequate comment period and input from job creators, including American companies that want to do business in Russia. These were all concessions that were secured, again, over this 18-year period by the United States and other countries, but primarily the United States took a role here--Republican and Democratic administrations alike--in ensuring that as Russia entered the WTO, we had the opportunity to have a fair trading system with them.

By the way, I was part of that as U.S. Trade Representative negotiating with my Russian counterpart. Secretary Johanns--then Secretary, now colleague from Nebraska--was part of that as U.S. Agriculture Secretary. Others here in the Congress have been part of that as members of the Finance Committee.

So currently we have these trade rules that apply to the rest of the world but not to us because Russia is part of the WTO but we haven't granted this important PNTR status. So of the more than 150 countries in the World Trade Organization, we are the only ones that are outside of this agreement at this point. American exporters will only receive those benefits with total certainty if we pass this bill to provide these normal trade relations with Russia. If we fail to do so, we really hold back American workers and businesses from growing in the Russian marketplace, which, by the way, has 140 million consumers. Our European and Asian competitors would have that reliability and certainty that we would lack. When Russia doesn't play by the rules, our competitors around the globe would be able to take them to the world trade court, but we wouldn't. If we think about it, in a way we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't move forward with permanent normal trade relations with Russia.

Russia is now the ninth largest economy. Unfortunately, we are underperforming in the Russian market. The United States, the world's greatest exporter, now only accounts for less than 5 percent of Russia's imports. Our competitors in Europe have a 40-percent share of the Russian market. China holds a 16-percent share of that market. So, again, it is a growth economy; it is an economy where we have tremendous opportunities.

I know Chairman Baucus talked about this earlier today. I watched him on C-SPAN where he talked about the opportunities in this market and about the need for us to help our exporters here in the United States by opening this potential market for our workers and our farmers. We can do much better if we pass this PNTR bill.

This is certainly true in my home State of Ohio. Ohio already exports about $200 billion a year in goods to Russia, and we want to retain those sales and add even more. This bill impacts a number of businesses with a large Ohio footprint.

Caterpillar, the world's leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, is one of them. Caterpillar employs nearly 1,000 Ohioans, including in the Miami Valley in Clayton, and is a great example of the certainty the PNTR bill will bring. With Russia's entrance into the WTO, tariffs on American-made Caterpillar trucks exported to Russia will fall from 15 percent to 5 percent. That allows Caterpillar to be much more competitive in the Russian market. For Caterpillar's off-highway trucks, the tariff reductions exceed

$100,000 per truck. That is a real difference. It is a substantial margin. But if we don't pass this bill, we have no idea how Russia will treat our U.S. exports and we will have no way to hold them accountable.

Other Ohio businesses that will benefit include Procter & Gamble, which sells more than 50 brands in Russia, including detergents, shampoos, and diapers. They have the leading market share, by the way, in 75 percent of the categories in which they compete.

Eaton, which is a company in the Cleveland area and has thousands of employees in northeast Ohio, exports industrial clutches and brakes to Russia and looks forward, again, to the certainty this bill will bring when working with our customers in Russia. They need that certainty.

GE Aviation in Ohio employs about 9,000 people in Cincinnati and has a great opportunity to compete as Russia acquires over 1,000 new civilian aircraft over the next decade.

Ohio's cattlemen strongly support this legislation. Russia has made some important concessions in the negotiations that will help meet the growing demand for U.S. beef in Russia. Russia is currently the fifth largest export market for U.S. beef. According to the USDA, over 48,000 head of U.S. live cattle were sold to Russia just this year. In 2011 Ohio exported over 3,000 cattle to Russia, and we expect that number to rise dramatically.

The bill also contains some items the Russian Government opposes, including the human rights provisions which were discussed earlier here on the floor, inspired by the treatment of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Senators Cardin, McCain, and others have put the spotlight on the corruption and the lack of transparency in Russia. These provisions will clamp down on human rights abusers, denying them visas and putting them on notice that their corruption won't be tolerated by freedom-loving countries such as the United States. The House passed this bill last month on the anniversary of Magnitsky's death, and it is time the Senate does the same.

We also have some provisions in this legislation that will ensure that our trade negotiators keep Russia's feet to the fire in implementing all the various commitments Russia has made, particularly with regard to agriculture. Russia has not always played by the rules. It has been a point of friction between our countries. We need to be sure they do the heavy lifting back home to bring their laws into compliance, including their pervasive use over time of non-science- based standards to discriminate against our U.S. agricultural exports.

I also wish to note my strong concern with Russia's involvement on another front; that is, their involvement in the continuing Syrian conflict. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have watched the Syrian situation with alarm, particularly as we have seen it unfolding this week. Russia has been anything but an ally in this case with the support of the Asad regime. They vetoed three U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at imposing tough sanctions on the Asad regime. When Russia isn't using their veto power to support their Syrian friends, they are arming the Asad dictatorship with over $1 billion, we are told, in weaponry, including attack helicopters, that they are using to continue their terror against their own citizens in Syria.

Let me be clear. While I fully oppose Russia's actions in Syria, this bill is no gift to Russia. In fact, this bill has teeth. It brings Russia into a rules-based system. It is good for America and our economy and our jobs, and I think it strikes a critical balance by giving critical assistance to American companies that want to export their products to Russia's growing middle class, supporting good-paying jobs here at home, while forcing Russia to play by the rules and, again, providing binding penalties if they fail to live up to these international standards.

While I am pleased we are finally moving forward on this bill, I am also disappointed we haven't made more progress over the last 4 years on trade. We didn't make opening new export markets a high priority in the President's first term. I am hoping that will change over the next 4 years because helping U.S. job creators export shouldn't be a partisan issue. Over 100 bilateral trade agreements are being negotiated today as we speak here on the floor. The United States is a party to none of them. We are a party to one multilateral trade agreement which I support, but we need to get back and engage in these bilateral agreements and open markets for our products. We have been sitting on our hands on the side lines in an increasingly global and dynamic economy. This is the first administration actually since FDR not to ask for the ability to negotiate export agreements and bring them to Congress under expedited procedures, which is now called trade promotion authority. And this is something unique. This administration has yet to even ask for it over the last 4 years.

Last year, we finally passed the Korea, Colombia, and Panama export agreements. Hopefully, our bipartisan actions today to boost exports to Russia will signal a new chapter for us to engage as a Congress and with the administration in a much more ambitious and proactive trade policy.

I am pleased this bipartisan bill received such broad support from Republicans and Democrats in the House, getting 365 votes, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to now support this legislation before us.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending measure be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2995.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is intended to expand the opportunities for defense industry employees to attend or participate in Department of Defense educational institutions and programs.

Specifically, the amendment will broaden the existing statute that authorizes defense industry employees to obtain a master's degree at Defense Department schools, such as the Naval Postgraduate School, by also allowing them to obtain professional continuing educational certification.

Having key members of the defense industry exposed to the unique courses offered at these institutions is a win-win for the Federal Government. The industry pays the tuition and covers all costs associated with their attendance, and in the process our defense industry partners gain greater expertise in the military application of engineering and science, as well as acquisition and program management expertise.

Again, I believe this is a win-win for the government, and I ask for a voice vote of the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut in offering this amendment, which is modeled on the bipartisan legislation we introduced in March along

with a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

We also recently joined to form a Senate caucus to end human trafficking, and I appreciate the chair and ranking member today for allowing this amendment to move forward.

The aim of this amendment is pretty simple. This amendment ensures that our contingency contracting dollars are spent in a manner that is consistent, as Senator Blumenthal said, with our deeply held values as a country. This is particularly important in the context of wartime contracting and reconstruction work.

This amendment comes from the work that both DOD and State Department IGs have done. The inspectors general have told us we lack sufficient monitoring to have the kind of visiblity we need under the labor practices by our contractors and subcontractors who rely on a lot of third-party nationals to do overseas work.

It also comes from the Wartime Contracting Commission, which has reported what is described as evidence of the recurrent problem of trafficking in persons by labor brokers or subcontractors of contingency contractors. The report concluded that existing prohibitions on such trafficking have failed to suppress it.

One of the commission members, a former Reagan and Bush administration defense official, testified before our committee, saying those findings were, in his assessment, just the tip of the iceberg. So I think this legislation is appropriate. It directly affects this issue that has been raised now by the IG and by the Wartime Contracting Commission. This is a commonsense approach to it.

Broadly defined, we believe this will help to deal with the human trafficking issue that has been identified. It deals with recruiting workers to leave their home countries based on fraudulent promises, confiscating passports, limiting the ability of workers to return home, charging workers so-called recruitment fees that consume more than a month's salary, just to name some of the abuses that have been identified.

I think it should be clear that the overwhelming majority of these contractors and subcontractors are law abiding, but we need to be sure these abusive labor practices are dealt with. This legislation will do so. I thank my colleague for raising it today. I am proud to join him in cosponsoring the legislation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I do seek recognition.

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

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

Mr. President, this is a pretty simple amendment. It has to do with correcting a problem that we have found in Ohio and around the country. Amendment No. 2956 simply calls on the Secretary of Defense to work to standardize the educational transcripts of separating servicemembers. I appreciate Senator Akaka's leadership and cosponsorship of this amendment.

It is an important issue to a lot of our veterans as they are seeking to pursue their educational opportunities after being in the service. If they seek to use the GI bill or other benefits to further their education after taking off the uniform, they sometimes find they have an issue of getting credit for work they have done in the service.

Each servicemember is issued a transcript upon leaving Active Duty. The transcript equates military training and instruction to academic credits. Colleges and universities then use these transcripts to award transfer credit to veteran students.

Unfortunately, there is a significant difference in the types of transcripts issued by each of the military services. As a result, two veterans from different services who took the exact same military courses could receive significantly different academic credit at the same school. If we multiply that across all the services, all of our veteran students, and across all the colleges and universities in this country, we end up with some real issues. We end up with many veterans losing out on credit they deserve, as well as very well-intentioned colleges and universities spending a lot of time and resources trying to make sense of all these differences to help this process for veterans. It often falls on the Veterans Service Offices in these schools, and as my colleagues know, these Veterans Service Offices should be spending their time assisting veterans with their transition to academic life, which is sometimes a challenge.

Ohio has been leading on this issue and has organized public and private schools, our State board of regents, and even the Ohio National Guard to try to bring some sense to this. That has been helpful, but it would be far easier and far better to standardize the military transcripts themselves. It would avoid, again, a lot of the issues, a lot of the bureaucracy.

The Defense Department has recognized some of these issues, and I think they have started down the path of developing a joint services transcript. This is an important first step, and through this amendment we seek an understanding of those requirements and their implementation plan for this kind of initiative, should it be in place, in order to see it on a path to a swift and thorough resolution.

So I think this is one that, again, as the chairman was asking, could be voice-voted. I hope it will be.

So, Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the pending amendment.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Seven minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member for the way they are handling this bill. As we have seen on the floor today, Democrats and Republicans alike are able to offer amendments and have an honest debate on the issues, which is exactly how we ought to be operating.

As the fiscal cliff approaches we should not only be working together across the aisle to address issues like we are today with the Defense authorization bill, but we should also be working to address other critical issues, including tax issues and spending issues. That is what I wanted to address.

We have a lot of challenges. Instead of pulling together we seem to be pulling apart, and I am specifically referring to some of the suggestions by some in the majority that we consider a controversial and partisan rule change that would marginalize minority Members and in a way that breaks the current rules to change the rules.

What I mean by that is it takes 67 votes to change a rule in the Senate. That is a rule, by the way, that dates back to 1917. The reason that is in place is because, obviously, folks wanted to force the majority and minority to work together to make those rule changes. We don't get a two-thirds vote without that. I think it is important that the basic rules are ones that are agreed on.

The party in the majority tends to change a lot around here. In fact, we have shifted back and forth between Republicans and Democrats 7 times in the past 30 years. So at one point we are in the majority, one point in the minority, and that is why having these basic rules in place make sense.

There are some proposing we get around the 67-vote majority by some procedure where, instead of having a two-thirds vote, we would just have a majority vote to change a rule. Regardless of what rule that might be--some would say it would be on the motion to proceed and other aspects of the filibuster. Of course it would set a precedent that could change the rules for other things as well. I think that would prove counterproductive in the short term. I also think it would prove counterproductive in the long run for the Senate.

All of us are focused, I hope, on the serious economic challenges that we face with the fiscal cliff impending. I think this would be the wrong time for us to put this body into an even more partisan environment by changing these rules.

Again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for what we are doing today because this is an example of how the Senate can work and has worked on several bills in my short time here. But in other cases we have not been able to do that. I think that involves both parties, again, working together to solve these problems.

The issue before us is the fiscal cliff, and I also want to address briefly, if I may, the ongoing discussion about taxes and what we should do regarding taxes. I want to take this opportunity to talk a little about why some of us believe that raising tax rates would be counterproductive at a time when our economy is so weak, and that there is another opportunity, and that is for tax reform.

The jobs crisis and the debt crisis are linked, and the President has made that point. He has said his priority in the grand bargain discussions, the fiscal cliff discussions, is to ensure that we encourage economic growth and jobs. So we should use this as an opportunity to address the underlying problems that are holding back our economy, an economy that is in tough shape today. Unemployment is still stuck just below 8 percent. The projections CBO has given us for the next year, by the way, are continued anemic growth in the economy and, in fact, unemployment going up, not down.

The economic case against imposing higher taxes is overwhelming. We all know if we tax something, people tend to do less of it and that is one reason why smoking is taxed, to get people to quit smoking. So why do we want to raise taxes on working, saving, and investing? Instead, we should encourage policies that create jobs, not discourage them through higher taxes.

Don't take it from me. There are others who have commented on this on both sides of the aisle. Christina Romer, President Obama's former Chief Economic Adviser, has written that in most circumstances, a tax increase that equals about 1 percent of GDP actually lowers GDP by about 3 percent. Harvard economist Marty Feldstein has written that a $1 increase in tax rates tends to cost the economy about 76 cents of growth.

There is a global perspective on this as well because other countries have gone through these fiscal problems and they have chosen to cut spending in some cases and raise taxes in other cases. There is a Harvard economist, Alberto Alesina, who has recently studied the experience of 17 countries in the developed world, such as the United States. Over the past 25 years, he has looked at how they have attempted to reduce their budget deficits. Based on IMF data, which is the International Monetary Fund, he concluded that ``tax-based deficit reduction'' was, in his words, ``always recessionary.'' By contrast, reducing deficits by cutting spending and enacting pro-growth reforms, including tax reform, actually spurred economic growth, according to the same study.

I think that this is consistent with our own economic history. Between 1948 and 1961, a period when the highest income tax rate rose from 82 to 91 percent, we went through some tough times. We had four recessions. Thankfully, our exports that helped rebuild Europe following World War II helped keep the economy moving. Reducing the top tax rate to 70 percent also helped, but the 1970s were still a period of stagnation, recession, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation. It was when Ronald Reagan reduced rates to 28 percent that we saw this impressive period of growth, maybe the most impressive ever.

It is something we saw again in 1997 when capital gains taxes that were cut under President Clinton and the Republican leadership in Congress were followed by a surge of investment and growth into the late 1990s. Again, after the 2003 tax rate cuts, we saw another example of the power of low tax rates. This was the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters before those rate cuts, the economy lost 1 million jobs. In the six quarters after those tax rate reductions, in 2003, economic growth nearly doubled and 2.3 million jobs were added.

Some tax increase advocates may assert a willingness to accept slower economic growth in the cause of deficit reduction and that is a legitimate point of view, that we need to have slower economic growth because deficit reduction is so important. But I would also point out some statistics. Slow growth also means less tax revenue. The White House's own data suggests that even a .26-percent reduction in economic growth--which is likely with big tax hikes--would wipe out the entire $800 billion in promised deficit reduction from higher tax rates. Growth is so incredibly important to reducing our debt and deficit and getting in control of our fiscal situation. So tax rate increases are not only bad economic policy, but they tend to be bad budget policy.

Tax reform is needed, and through tax reform we could have higher revenues. But both theory and practice make a convincing case that keeping rates low is better for the economy and jobs. Structural spending reforms combined with pro-growth tax reform, in my view, are the right approach and I think historically that has proven to be true. I will speak for myself as one Republican, although other Republicans as well are willing to accept new revenues, but the right way to do it is through reforming our outdated Tax Code and having these structural reforms that everybody feels are necessary.

Both the corporate and individual sides of the Code are marked by relatively high marginal rates and a complex maze of tax preferences that distort economic decisions, misallocate capital, and allow some taxpayers to avoid paying their share. Tax reform can kill two birds with one stone. By capping or eliminating inefficient tax

preferences, we can avoid raising corporate and individual rates, without adding a dime to the deficit, by the way. In fact, if done right, tax reform will increase revenues by spurring growth, job creation and, therefore, bigger tax receipts.

Tax reform is both a fiscal and competitive necessity for our country. It has been more than 25 years since we substantially reformed the Tax Code and twice as long--about 50 years--since we did a bottom- up review of our international tax laws. The world has changed a lot in that time period, yet America has not kept up. The underlying assumptions in our Tax Code are, frankly, out of step with today's complex global economy. This is especially evident in our corporate Tax Code. The United States is now the highest corporate tax country among all the developed countries in the developed world. Canada has lowered its federal corporate rate from 16.5 percent to 15 percent, bringing its combined rate to 25 percent--nearly 15 points lower than the U.S. combined rate. Our rate is 39.2 percent when we combine the State and Federal burden. The Federal burden is 35 percent and the State burden is closer to 36 percent. So right now the average among all of the developed countries in the world is 25.1 percent, and the U.S. rate stands at 39.2 percent when we combine the State and Federal burdens.

A similar trend, by the way, has played out with respect to international tax rules, as our trading partners, including Japan and Britain, have moved to a more competitive, territorial-like tax regime over the past 10 years, which encourages movement of investment, capital, and jobs overseas. So there is a simple point here which is, by standing still, the United States is falling behind. The resulting drag on American competitiveness and job creation is real and substantial.

The solution is tax reform that broadens the tax base by scaling back tax preferences and cutting the corporate rate. We could cut it to 25 percent and scale back the deductions, credits, and exemptions, and have a competitive, territorial system and have it all be revenue neutral. There is such a proposal by the Joint Committee on Taxation here in Congress.

I am not saying it is easy. Some of these preferences, of course, and loopholes are ones that are very difficult to reduce or eliminate, but it would be the right thing to do for our economy. I think we have seen some signs of developing bipartisan consensus on this issue and I am hopeful we will see the same movement for pro-growth individual tax reform, because reforming the entire Tax Code is critical to regaining competitiveness, spurring growth, and producing the revenues we need to pay for important public priorities.

The smart way to raise revenue is not through tax hikes that will shrink our economy, but rather through tax reform designed to help grow the economy and help make American workers and businesses more competitive so we can compete and win in the global economy.

Again, today as we are approaching the fiscal cliff I hope this Senate works together on a bipartisan basis to work toward tax reform in a way to increase revenues and grow our economy while we look at the important structural reforms we have to make in order to solve the fiscal crisis we face.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I wish to follow up briefly on that and say that in 1997, when we decided to move toward a balanced budget agreement when President Clinton was President, there was also an agreement to cut the capital gains rate. We sometimes forget the capital gains rate cut produced a lot of revenue that was not expected. As a result, we got to a unified balanced budget on a unified basis more rapidly than anybody thought we would. It came 2 or 3 years sooner than projected, in part because there was about $100 billion of new revenue that showed up the next year from the fact that we did reduce the capital gains rates.

I understand the need for us to deal with the deficit and to have revenue. There is no question that this is necessary, but to do it by raising rates alone, which is what is being proposed by some people, is going to result in lower economic growth, it is going to result in job loss, and it is not going to have the intended benefit on the revenue side. The alternative is clear, which is, for the first time in a couple of decades, we need to get busy on reforming this Tax Code as Ronald Reagan did with Democratic help, including Democratic Senators such as Phil Bradley here in the U.S. Senate, to encourage growth and to encourage the kind of economic growth that is going to result in more revenue coming in. We should not miss this opportunity to do that.

As I said earlier, I believe there is a building consensus around that. We saw it in the Simpson-Bowles Commission. We have seen it in the Rivlin-Domenici work, and other outside groups have looked at this, at our Tax Code. And by broadening the base, we can be more competitive and through growth have additional revenues coming in.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Tinkham ``Tink'' Veale II. Mr. Veale was a successful entrepreneur and philanthropist who contributed greatly to the success of numerous businesses and community institutions throughout northeast Ohio and beyond during his long life. The impact and proud legacy of his business expertise and generosity will be realized for many years to come.

Mr. Veale was born in 1914 in Topeka, KS and moved to the Cleveland area as a child when his father joined the Eaton Corporation. He attended Heights High School and Case Institute of Technology, graduating with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. Mr. Veale worked for several companies including General Motors. In 1941 he married Harriett Ernst, of the Ernst and Young accounting family, who passed away in 1998. The couple had three children, seven grandchildren and eight great grandchildren.

In the 1960s, Veale and his associates formed Alco Standard Corporation.

Veale developed the philosophy and strategy he referred to as ``corporate partnership,'' through which his company acquired and financed small businesses while keeping their original management structures in place. His success grew from buying small companies and helping them to succeed through keeping their management in place while contributing with capital and strategic direction. Over the years, the company operated many businesses representing diverse industries including manufacturing, mining, and banking, as well as operating office equipment and paper distribution businesses. Veale served as Alco's president and chairman until 1971 and stayed on as chairman until 1986. By 1987, the company had 175 businesses with 16,000 employees in the United States and Europe.

Mr. Veale had a unique spirit and love of life. Over the years he was active in a variety of community organizations, served as a councilman in Gates Mills, OH, and was known for raising thoroughbred horses. Perhaps most significant, was his generous philanthropy which continues to benefit communities, students and institutions in Ohio. He was a notable supporter of his alma mater, Case Western Reserve University, where the most recent pledge of $20 million from The Veale Foundation is being utilized for construction of a new university center, which will be named in his honor.

Tink Veale was a role model and a source of inspiration to us all. He will be greatly missed, and his extraordinary legacy and giving spirit will not be forgotten.