Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor 369 high school seniors in eight northeast Ohio counties for their commendable decision to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of these 369 seniors from 128 high schools in 87 towns and cities, 83 will enter the Army, 174 will enter the Marine Corps, 25 will enter the Navy, 30 will enter the Air Force, 4 will enter the Coast Guard, and 53 will enter our Ohio Army National Guard. In the presence of their parents/guardians, and high school counselors, military leaders, city and business leaders, all 369 will be recognized on May 10, 2012 by ``Our Community Salutes of Northeast Ohio.''

Later this month, these young men and women will join many of 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 country.

Naturally, many may be anxious about the uncertainties that may await them as members of the Armed Forces. But, they should rest assured that the full support and resources of this Chamber, and the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead.

It is thanks to the dedication of an untold number of patriots like these 369 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, their parents and their communities for instilling the character, values, discipline and mental and physical abilities of these outstanding young men and women.

I would like to personally thank these 369 graduating seniors for their selflessness and courage that they have shown by volunteering in defense of our Nation. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the names of the 369 high school seniors in the Congressional Record.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize the establishment of the William J. Motto Annual Bioscience Scholarship at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College.

To commemorate the 35th anniversary of its founding, Meridian Bioscience, Inc., is funding a $5,000 annual scholarship to support a deserving student each year at Cincinnati State.

The scholarship is named in honor of Meridian bioscience executive chairman and Founder, William ``Bill'' Motto, who has a passion for creating opportunities for hard-working individuals who wish to improve their lives and our community.

Bill Motto founded Meridian in 1977 in the basement of his home, not far from the company's headquarters in Newtown, just outside of Cincinnati. Today, Meridian is a fully integrated life science company that manufactures, markets, and distributes a broad range of diagnostic test kits, purified reagents, and biopharmaceutical enabling technologies. In addition to products used in the early diagnosis and treatment of common medical conditions, Meridian develops and manufactures a variety of biological and nonbiological materials used in proficiency testing programs.

The scholarship will be geared toward students majoring in biosciences, as the college prepares to open a new bioscience lab in its Health Professions Building. In addition, the college has expanded its curriculum to help students become lab technicians or to pursue bachelor's or other specialized degrees.

Cincinnati State offers more than 75 associate degree and certificate programs in business technologies, health and public safety, engineering technologies, humanities and sciences, and information technologies. Cincinnati State also has one of the largest cooperative education programs in the United States, including a full slate of outstanding workforce training programs and courses. Cincinnati State's Workforce Development Center provides practical, hands-on learning experiences delivering both the professional and educational expertise so critical to effective, efficient workforce training.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Cincinnati State and commend Meridian Bioscience and its founder, Bill Motto for giving back to southwest Ohio and the future leaders of bioscience fields in our State.

Madam President, today I wish to congratulate Richard and Tim Smucker for being awarded the Harvard Business School Club of Northeastern Ohio's 2012 Leadership Award. These two brothers carry the legacy of a company created by Jerome Monroe Smucker over a century ago in 1897. Today, Smucker's employs more than 4,000 people and manages 29 domestic and 5 international brands, including Jif, Folgers, and Crisco. I have visited the company's headquarters and manufacturing facilities and seen firsthand how they have kept this great Ohio company at the forefront.

Richard Smucker has been a Smucker's director, having also served as president, co-chief executive, and executive chairman. In August of 2011, Richard was named chief executive officer of the company and continues to serve in this role.

Tim Smucker became a company director in 1973. He has also served as the company's chairman, as well as its co-chief executive. Since August of 2011, Timothy has served as the company's chairman of the board.

Mr. President, Richard and Tim Smucker received the 2012 Leadership Award for their continued and steadfast commitment to the J.M. Smucker Company, its brands, and its employees. I wish them both continued success in the future and commend them for their outstanding leadership in our State.

Mr. President, we stand here today, the day before tax day--the day when all Americans have to get their income taxes together--and we also stand here in the middle of the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression--a time when economists across the spectrum agree there is an urgent need for us to take our Tax Code and make it more efficient, to reform our Tax Code to help grow our economy and add jobs. And instead of an administration or leadership in this body proposing serious tax reforms that will actually get people back to work, we are spending this week debating a political proposal that no one can credibly argue will create a single job, except maybe some tax accountants because it adds more complexity to an already way too complex Tax Code. Unfortunately, this has become ``tax gimmick week'' here in Washington.

It is particularly disappointing because as a Nation we are stuck in an historically weak economy with high unemployment, record long-term unemployment, and anemic economic growth. This recovery we are in is different, sadly. We are still millions of jobs down from where we were at the start of the recession, which was about 4 years ago. It is interesting to compare it to other recoveries.

In 2001, the so-called jobless recovery, at this point in the recovery about 4 years after the recession, the Nation had not only brought back all the jobs that were lost in the recession but we had added hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Even in 1981, considered the deepest recession in modern history before the most recent one, at this time 4 years after the recession we had added 6 million new jobs to the economy.

Unfortunately, today, as we stand here, we are still down 5.5 million jobs. So instead of adding 6 million jobs, as we had during the Reagan administration after the 1981 deep recession, today as we stand here we are still trying to find how to add back the jobs we lost in the recession, 5.5 million jobs, 5.5 million families across this country who continue to look for hope and opportunity.

So in the midst of this weak recovery, the weakest since the Great Depression, I think it is reasonable to expect that the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress would focus on real solutions to create jobs; in particular, real solutions to reform our inefficient, complex, and outdated Tax Code, because there is a consensus out there we need to do that.

To make the Tax Code more pro-jobs, to encourage work and savings and investment requires broad-based reform, and everybody knows it. The President's own commission, called the Simpson-Bowles commission, recommended it. Most recently, the President's own Jobs Council recommended it.

We need a proposal taken up by this Senate that is driven by good economics. Instead, what we are getting this week is one that is driven by campaign rhetoric. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will soon bring to the floor President Obama's proposed new tax targeting investment income, the Buffett tax, named after businessman Warren Buffett, which imposes a 30-percent minimum tax on anyone earning over a certain amount--$1 million. Interestingly, for all of the chest thumping about this is going to reduce our deficit, this new tax will bring in less than one-half of 1 percent of the annual individual income taxes that are paid. By the way, this will be enough to pay 1 week's interest on our $15 trillion national debt. That is it. So it is certainly not about deficit reduction at a time of trillion-dollar deficits.

The President also says his new tax on investments on American businesses is necessary to, as he said, invest in what will help the economy grow. This apparently means this will result in more government spending. Private enterprises that actually create jobs apparently are not the ones that will be making the investments. Instead, it will be investments through government spending.

I think the Buffett rule is bad economics, I think it is bad fiscal policy, and I think it is a distraction from the broader bipartisan effort underway to achieve fundamental tax reform that is necessary to unleash a true economic recovery--the proposals built, by the way, on this notion that I heard from my colleague a moment ago that the Tax Code is not progressive. We can argue about what progressive means, but here are some statistics:

According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of income earners in this country pays a 28-percent Federal tax rate. By contrast, Americans with incomes between $60,000 and $100,000 pay a 19- percent tax rate. Those earning between $35,000 and $60,000 pay a 14- percent tax rate.

Another way to look at this is that the top 1 percent of taxpayers now pays 39 percent of all Federal income taxes. The top 10 percent now pays 86 percent of all Federal income taxes. Those below the 50-percent mark now pay 1 percent of Federal income taxes. Is that progressive or not? I would say it is progressive.

To my colleagues who are saying the income tax is not progressive, I don't think that is the concern here. I think the concern is we have an income tax code that has too many preferences, deductions, credits, exemptions--by the way, mostly taken advantage of by wealthier taxpayers. We ought to reform the Tax Code.

But because the Tax Code is already so progressive, as we talked about, this proposal from the President works primarily by increasing the tax a lot of wealthy people pay on investment income, primarily what is known as long-term capital gains. Capital gains have historically been taxed in this country at a lower rate for individuals, and they are taxed at a lower rate for good reason: Capital gains are the return on longer term investments and enterprises that create jobs. That is something that we have always wanted to encourage in this country. A lower tax on capital gains drives job- creating investment. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Committee on Taxation, it increases wages over the long run. So by having a lower rate for capital investments, long-term investments in job creation, it will increase wages in the long run.

By the way, that is why Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all backed capital gains rate cuts. As President Kennedy said so well: A rising tide lifts all boats.

Second, we should realize that raising the capital gains rate doesn't translate directly into higher revenues. Why is that? It is because it is an elective tax. Think about it. You only pay it when you choose to sell an asset, when you choose to realize what is called a gain when you sell something. So you don't have to incur this tax. Common sense, economics, and experience teach that a higher capital gains rate causes some investors to hold assets rather than sell them, just as a lower capital gains rate will encourage more people to sell an asset because the rate will be lower. And this is what has happened: After every recent capital gains rate cut, in 1981, 1997, and 2003, capital gains revenues actually increased.

So you had a cut in the rate in 1981, 1997, and 2003, and what happened? The revenues actually increased: Lower rate, higher revenues. How could that be? Well, because with the lower rate people sold more assets and created more economic activity.

Capital gains tax rates increased between 37 and 114 percent over 4 years, and that is after inflation. By contrast, after a capital gains rate increase took effect in 1987--that was talked about a moment ago-- capital gains revenues actually dropped 55 percent over the next 4 years.

So we can debate what the rate ought to be, but the fact is to say that there is going to be a direct correlation between raising that rate and more revenue simply is not borne out by historical experience or by common sense.

Third, unlike other types of income, capital gains are often double taxed. Think about a typical capital investment, someone buying corporate stock--that is the most typical one, holding that stock for over 1 year--you have got to hold it for over 1 year--and then selling it for a profit. That gain has already been subject to a 35-percent rate at the corporate level. It is then followed by the capital gains rate, now at 15 percent, when the shareholder sells, for a combined 45- percent tax on that capital investment.

By the way, with global competitors such as Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and others moving to cut their corporate tax rates in order to create jobs, this new tax on capital investment would move the United States farther backward in terms of being competitive in the global economy. Our corporate tax rate is already higher than all of our major foreign competitors. As of April 1, Japan lowered theirs, making us No. 1 in the world in something you don't want to be No. 1 in, which is the highest corporate rate. We don't need new barriers to growth and job creation, and that is what would result.

Instead of an election year gimmick that won't help the economy, it is time to focus on fundamental tax reform to make American businesses and workers more competitive again, as the President's own Simpson- Bowles commission has recommended and as the President's own Jobs Council has recommended.

I agree with what former Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin said about the Buffett tax, which is the way to fix the Tax Code is to fix the Tax Code, not to add another complication at the margins. The Buffett tax is an election year distraction from serious reform. Why not focus on the elephant in the room--an outdated and complex Tax Code that is hurting our economy, weighing down our economy, making it harder for us to get out of the kind of doldrums we are in right now with this weak recovery.

I believe there is a consensus among economists and serious thinkers across the political spectrum, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, that with an increasingly competitive global economy, we have to reform our Tax Code to help us get out of this rut we are in, this historically weak recovery that leaves too many people vulnerable, too many parents wondering if the future is going to be brighter for their kids and grandkids, as it was for them.

I believe there is also a growing bipartisan consensus about how to do it, which is that we ought to do it by broadening the base--meaning getting rid of some of these growing credits and deductions and exemptions I talked about earlier, lowering the marginal rates on American families and on our businesses to be able to create jobs. That will ensure that those who can afford to pay more will pay their share--their fair share. And the economy will grow, a rising tide lifting all boats, truly helping families who are worried, for good reason, about their economic future.

The American people don't deserve more gimmicks, as we will see this week in Washington. They deserve real leadership.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the American Studio Glass Movement. The movement is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. The American Studio Glass Movement began in Toledo, OH, as a small group of passionate artists and has grown into an international movement of artists creating one-of-a-kind art glass. I would like to congratulate the American Studio Glass Movement on 50 years of encouraging and supporting sculpture glass.

In 1962, the American Studio Glass Movement began with two glassblowing workshops at the Toledo Art Museum. These workshops were highlighted by the inaugural implementation of the personal glass furnace. This invention made it possible for individual artists in personal studios to engage in creative glass design.

The American Studio Glass Movement has introduced the beauty and creativity of studio glass to millions of people. From June 13 16, the Glass Art Society will hold its annual conference in Toledo, OH, allowing artists, collectors, and enthusiasts from across the world to gather at the birthplace of glass art to celebrate 50 years of studio glass. Further, over 160 art museums, including nine Ohio art museums will hold exhibitions honoring the 50th anniversary of the American Studio Glass Movement.

I would like to join with the movement's thousands of supporters and associated museums in congratulating the American Studio Glass Movement on 50 years of success.

I say to my colleague from Nebraska, I am afraid the answer is yes. It is increasing costs and, therefore, making us less competitive. When we increase the costs of doing business, of course, it impacts the economy. The Senator has laid this out very well. I appreciate the Senator's comments this morning.

The Senator talked about the 800,000 jobs that are projected to be lost, and that is probably a conservative figure, given the information I am getting from back home and what the Senator just talked about. The Senator talked about the fact that premiums are going to increase dramatically--27 to 30 percent.

Since the Senator mentioned the Office of Management and Budget, I will also say this is about our businesses and their ability to create jobs and get this economy moving. It is about all of us as families and consumers having higher costs. It is also about our Federal budget deficit. We have an expert on that in Dr. Coburn, who will speak in a moment. But the point is, this is increasing costs to all of us in various ways, and the budget deficit is already at record levels--a $15 trillion debt. Our country, obviously, is awash in red ink, and one of the reasons, of course, is higher health care costs. So this is impacting us in a lot of different ways.

Let me address the Senator's question more directly, though, and that is in terms of the impact on business. I will tell the Senator, I have visited over 100 factories in Ohio in the last few years, and in every one I asked this question: What is going on with taxes and regulations and energy and health care? I have not been to a business yet that has not told me their health care cost increases over the past couple years have added to the uncertainty, the unpredictability, and, therefore, the lack of investment into jobs and growth.

I went to a factory in Cleveland, OH, one day, and this is a relatively small business. It is actually seeing its sales increase a little bit. The owner said: Rob, I would like to hire people, but I want to offer health care. Everybody here has health care, which is great. Those costs embedded in adding a new employee are too high; they are prohibitive. So what I am doing instead is I am going to overtime, I am going to part time to avoid hiring a full-time worker.

Luckily, I was there with some members of the media, and they were able to hear this directly from this individual who is making a decision about whether to hire somebody in Ohio during this weak recovery. The health care law and the health care cost increases are directly impacting that. So it is for real.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did a study recently, as the Senator knows. This was just a couple months ago. They asked small businesses with fewer than 500 employees all around America: How does this impact you? Seventy-four percent of them say the recent health care law makes it harder for their business to hire more employees. Fifty-two percent of them say economic uncertainty is one of the top reasons they are not hiring. Thirty-six percent say uncertainty about what Washington will do next is one of their two top reasons they are not hiring. Thirty percent say they are not hiring because of the requirements in the health care bill.

This is not just anecdotal evidence we are picking up in our States as we go around and talk to employers. This is information that is out there for the public to see. I hope all the activity that is surrounding this 2-year anniversary of the passage of this law from the Democratic side and from our side will rekindle this debate because, clearly, we did not get it right. We did not affect the fundamental problem, which is the cost of health care rising to the point that it is affecting us as consumers and families. It is affecting our ability to get this economy moving. It is affecting our budget deficit in such dramatic ways.

Doug Holtz-Eakin, who was the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, testified last year. I thought it was interesting what he said. As you know, the health care reform law says, if someone is an employer with more than 50 employees, they have to offer full-time employees coverage or pay a $2,000 penalty per worker. He made an interesting point. I see this around Ohio with these small businesses that have maybe 30, 40 workers, and they are hoping to be able to add more. He said--and I think he is right--this creates ``a tremendous impediment to expansion.'' His example was: Let's say a company does not offer health care benefits and they have under 50 employees and they want to add another full-time employee. They take it up to 51 employees--a $2,000-per-worker penalty, after subtracting the first 30 workers. The fine to hire an additional worker would be $42,000, for that one worker to be added marginally to its workforce.

So businesses have to offset that lost revenue. The burden will be borne, as Doug Holtz-Eakin said, by whom? The workers, with lower wages, fewer jobs, fewer hours to be worked, less job growth.

The Senator talked about the many taxes in this legislation, and the overall burden of the taxation on the economy is one of the problems with it, but there is also a very specific tax on medical device companies, and this is one that I know affects both of the Senators' States. It certainly affects Ohio. We have a lot of very innovative medical device companies in Ohio, and they tell me they are going to have to cut back on their workforce because of this new tax that is in the health care bill.

So think about this. At a time when we are all proposing we do more on

science and technology and math and engineering, the STEM programs, we are trying to encourage more innovation in this country to be able to compete globally, medical device businesses in Ohio and around our country have been able to be strong and we have been able to compete globally and we should be doing all we can to encourage them and to help them. Instead, we are doing the opposite.

There is a 2.3-percent medical device excise tax in this legislation, and it is going to hit next year. They are already planning for it. It is not a 2.3-percent tax on profits. That is what you would expect, right? It is a tax on revenues. So we could have a young startup entrepreneur who says: I am starting this company even though it is a loss leader the first couple years. I am not making any money. But I know I have a great idea, and I am going to continue to stretch this out to be able to create something of great value for our health care, for the quality of health care, to be able to save lives. Yet I have no profit. So I probably will not be taxed, right? Guess what. They are going to be taxed. They are going to be taxed on their revenue.

Established companies that do have some profit--they are looking at big taxes on their revenues, particularly if they are doing well. There are a couple companies in Ohio and around the country that have already told us what they are going to do.

Let me give you an example. Last year, I visited Mound Laser and Photonics Center outside Dayton, OH. They provide services to the medical device industry--fabrication. They do very technical work. They have machinists there who are specializing in medical device manufacturing. They provide machining services to the device industry.

The CEO is a friend of mine, Dr. Larry Dosser. He told me when I was there--he said: Look, this could be devastating to our business--this 2.3 percent excise tax--because these are our customers. Unfortunately, he has just told me he is going to have to start laying off people. On January 1, 2012--a couple months ago--they laid off people for the first time in their history. It is a 16-year-old company. It is an up- and-coming company. They are adding people every year. Because of this medical device tax, they are having to plan for higher taxes, therefore, a hit to their revenues, and they are starting to lay off people already.

There are other examples. Meridian Bioscience is in Cincinnati. I visited there. I talked to the workers, I talked to the management, and they tell me flat out: This is going to cost us tens of millions of dollars, and this is going to result in us laying off workers. They are not sure if it is 40 workers or 80 workers, but it is an up-and-coming company in our area that is doing the right things, creating jobs and opportunity and creating devices that will, in this case, by the way, also improve the quality and lower the costs of health care. That is what they specialize in--diagnostic services that the Senator, as a doctor, understands, Dr. Coburn, can be incredibly helpful in getting health care costs down.

There are others. Stryker Corporation just announced its intention to lay off 5 percent of its workforce in anticipation of the implementation of this tax at the beginning of next year.

This is what is happening. There is a better way. There is a way to reduce costs and increase competition in health care to make it more patient centered. You all have been leaders in that. We have laid out alternatives. We are not saying the health care system was perfect before this legislation was drafted--not at all. Of course, it needs to be improved and reformed and it can be. It can be done in a way that both improves quality and improves the ability of people to have access by adding transparency and adding competition and adding the value of quality and outcomes rather than just input and volume to reduce costs in our system.

We have to do that. If we do not do that, this law will continue to affect our economy negatively. One reason we have the weakest recovery since the Great Depression is because of the impact of health care, and this law has made it worse, not better.

I thank the Senator for letting me come by to talk about this issue. I look forward to the continuing dialog.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is similar to an amendment we voted on earlier today. This is simply a State opt-out, giving States the discretion to be able to opt out should they choose to. The highway trust fund has been bailed out three times from the general fund to the tune of about $35 billion. This would enable us to put more money directly into roads and bridges. The highway trust fund spent about $78 billion on projects not related to that over the period 2004 to 2008.

Again, I encourage my colleagues to support this opportunity for us to get back on a fiscally sustainable path, eliminate waste, allow the States the flexibility they need to maintain our roads and bridges back home.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield my time.

This is simply an opt-out, it is not a mandate. It gives the States the discretion to do it. The States would be required to support the highway system. It is a different vote from the previous amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense approach to make sure we get more money into our roads and bridges.

Mr. President, this amendment is about States being able to control what happens at their rest areas. It is a very important amendment. It is supported by a number of different groups: the National Governors Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Citizens Against Government Waste, a lot of private sector entities, as well as other organizations.

It goes to a mandate that was put in place back in 1956 that is a typical one-size-fits-all Federal mandate--unfunded--that does not allow States the flexibility to decide what they do at their rest areas. This amendment would lift that mandate from 1956. Incidentally, 26 of us represent States that already allow some commercial activity at rest areas because those rest areas were grandfathered in before the 1956 mandate.

It makes a lot of sense, and it will save States hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It takes that money and provides for the needs of the State in the transportation areas, including putting more money into roads and bridges.

This amendment does not direct or mandate States to do anything. They do not have to commercialize a single rest area. They do not have to change the way they are doing anything, but they would have the opportunity to do so. It gives States the much needed flexibility they want.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Bishop Timothy Clarke of Columbus, OH for his 30 years of dedicated leadership and service to First Church of God. This past Sunday, March 11, 2012, marked both Bishop Clarke's 30th year as Pastor and First Church of God's 75th Anniversary.

Bishop Clarke began his work in January 1974, serving as Associate Minister at First Church of God in his hometown of Far Rockaway, NY. In November 1977, Bishop Clarke began his pastorate at York Avenue Church of God in Warren, OH, where he served for 4 years.

In February, 1982, he became the Senior Pastorate of First Church of God in Columbus, OH. He was later consecrated to the office of Bishop in September 2001.

Bishop Clarke is a respected community leader in central Ohio and is the recipient of many honors and degrees for his service. He has served on the boards of various community organizations, and he has authored seven books.

Having worshipped with him and his congregation, I can attest to his significant impact on the community, and I am honored to call him a friend.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize Bishop Clarke for his dedicated service as he and his congregation celebrate this joyous occasion of his 30th year as Pastor and the First Church of God's 75th anniversary.

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

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support these amendments. The first one gives the States the freedom to keep their gas taxes. For decades, Washington has collected State gas taxes through its highway program, taken its cut off the top, and then attached burdensome mandates to the funds before sending them back to the States.

It hasn't worked. Since 2008, the highway trust fund has been bailed out three times from the Treasury's general fund to the tune of about $35 billion. During that time, the Federal Government has required that 10 percent of all surface transportation funds be spent on wasteful ``enhancements,'' which has included archeological planning and research, transportation museums, and scenic ``beautification'' along highways, and so on.

The GAO has found that between 2004 and 2008, at a time when our bridges and roads have been in disrepair and have needed all the help they could get, the highway trust fund spent $78 billion on projects not related to the support of our Nation's network of highways and bridges.

With the economy struggling, we need to provide States with the ability to move quickly and innovatively to implement their transportation priorities instead of a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington.

Ohio's gas taxes should not be watered down, shouldn't be wasted by costly Federal mandates, regulations, and bureaucracies that Ohio doesn't think are necessary. Rather, States should have the freedom to use the revenue collected from highway users within their own States in the way the State sees fit to get more money into infrastructure.

This amendment will give States the freedom they need to do that, while ensuring that States maintain the current Interstate State Highway system in accordance with current standards. We need to pass this amendment today so that States can get back on track.

Let me give you an example I recently heard about over the weekend. This comes from Jeff Linkous, who is the Clinton County, OH, engineer. It is an example of how the Federal Government sometimes gets in the way and escalates the cost of projects.

Todds Fork there is a local stream. It is crossed by two roads, Prairie Road and Starbuck Road. For each of the roads, Clinton County has built a bridge over Todds Fork. The same firm designed both bridges. They are the same length, but there was one major difference. The bridge for Prairie Road was built using Federal money, while the bridge for Starbuck Road was built using Ohio funds.

According to Jeff Linkous, the federally funded bridge cost about 20 percent more than the State-funded bridge. I hear this all over the State, as I am sure my colleagues do as well. It took more time from design to bid, so it was more expensive and took more time, and was more costly in both respects.

The Federal project costs more in a lot of areas, including Federal bureaucracy, more environmental studies, more historical and archaeological studies, more right-of-way expenses, more design and review costs. The stakes have never been higher. The Federal Government cannot continue the current course of wasting our State's gas taxes.

Since the last transportation authorization bill, called SAFETY-LU, back in 2005, the outlays have exceeded revenues from the gas taxes every single year. We have to get back on a fiscally sustainable path, eliminate the waste, and allow the States the flexibility to maintain their roads, bridges, and highways. This amendment would do that. It is an opt-out, not a mandate. States could choose to opt out or not.

The second amendment also is a fiscally responsible one that helps the taxpayer. It lifts an antiquated one-size-fits-all government mandate that dates back to 1956, and it would allow the States the freedom to make their own decisions on how to manage their rest areas, which the Federal Government forces States to pay to maintain and improve.

The current approach would set up a patchwork of exemptions, acceptance, and special permits that allows some States to commercialize rest areas, while prohibiting other States from doing the same. Under this amendment, States would have the freedom to commercialize interstate and noninterstate rest areas, as long as they don't impair the highway or interfere with the full use and safety of the highway. At a time when America's core transportation infrastructure--highways, roads and bridges--needs all the help it can get, the Ohio Department of Transportation spends $15 million a year on rest area upkeep in Ohio alone. The high cost of maintaining and improving these rest areas is handcuffing the ability of Ohio and other States to spend more money on core infrastructure, roads and bridges.

This is a fiscally conservative pro-taxpayer amendment that would help States such as Ohio recover some of these losses or maybe even break even or maybe add some revenue, by allowing restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, or other entities to lease spaces at rest areas. It is a commonsense approach that is supported by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and by a lot of the private sector as well.

This amendment is a way to give core infrastructure projects more funding, while enacting a proposal that actually helps the States to be able to make the decision. In Ohio alone, if you take out $50 million a year cost for rest areas and calculate it over the

next 20 years, that is $1 billion that could go into highway infrastructure.

This amendment doesn't direct or mandate States to commercialize rest areas or commercialize in any specific way. It leaves it up to the States, and it gives States the flexibility they want to be able to make their own decisions on how best to use those rest areas.

I urge colleagues to join me in voting to lift the Federal mandate and give States the freedom to develop their own underused and expensive rest areas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember Dr. William Schubert of Cincinnati, OH, for his many years of outstanding leadership and service to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and our Greater Cincinnati community. Dr. Schubert, a Cincinnati native, died on February 25, 2012.

Bill Schubert graduated from Walnut Hills High School and then went on to attend the University of Cincinnati. Shortly after his arrival on campus, he was drafted into the U.S. Navy. After his service in the Navy, Dr. Schubert graduated from the University of Cincinnati and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

Bill Schubert's 33 year career at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center included 13 years of service as the center's president and chief executive officer. Under his leadership, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center was ranked within the top 5 best pediatric medical centers in our country and was also designated as a Level 1 pediatric trauma center. Some of his other notable career achievements include establishing new clinical and research divisions for the center and overseeing the opening of the hospital's first two satellite outpatient centers.

In addition to his service to the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Bill Schubert remained active in the Cincinnati community through his involvement in various local and national organizations. In 1993, he was named a Great Living Cincinnatian by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. He left a legacy of leadership and kindness, and his devotion to his community serves as an example for others to follow.

I would like to remember Dr. William Schubert for his dedication to Cincinnati Children's Hospital and for the extraordinary impact he made on our community.

Madam President, I rise with my colleague Senator Brown, who has just spoken about this terrible tragedy that occurred in our State on Monday at Chardon High School in Geauga County. I was calling into a radio program in the Cleveland area on Monday morning when the first reports started to come in. Frankly, it was unbelievable that there could be a shooting anywhere but certainly in a high school and in this community that I visited that Senator Brown and I both know. Unfortunately, the rumors ended up being true and the tragedy is--as Senator Brown has just described so well--that lives were cut short and these were lives full of promise. We will never know those young people Senator Brown was just talking about as adults, but we will always remember them, and now they are memorialized in the Congressional Record.

My wife Jane and I have been keeping the families in our prayers, and for that matter the entire Chardon High School community. We continue to pray for the healing of those who were injured in flesh and in spirit through this terrible act. As the parent of a high school student who is about the same age as these young people, I cannot imagine what the parents have gone through over the last 4 days. Chardon is a beautiful community. It is almost a New England-style town on the Western Reserve, with a beautiful town square. It is a place of certainty, and that certainty, of course, now has been shattered. It touches so many people around Ohio.

One of my staff has two cousins who attend the school, and along with two other cousins who have already graduated from the school, fortunately, their family members are all OK. But it shows that despite being a big State, all of us in Ohio are tied together.

We have been in touch with the Chardon officials offering to help where it is appropriate. I know Senator Brown has made a call, as has the Governor, and the President has made a call. We all want to be there and help in any way we can. We can draw some hope from the heroism of the day.

Unbelievably, the assistant football coach and teacher, Frank Hall, chased the shooter with his gun and showed a lot of bravery. A math teacher, Joe Ricci, rescued one of the injured students. We draw hope from the rank and leadership of Principal Andy Fetchik, Chardon schools Superintendent Joe Bergant, Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland, Chardon Police Chief Tim McKenna, and the first responders who responded as they always do, and we appreciate and commend them for their reactions and their ability to deal with a very difficult situation.

The community has received a lot of support and will need it as they come together to grieve and to heal. The reports I have heard about, the vigils and gatherings over the last week have been moving. I am told as students returned to school for the first time today, they gathered in that town square I talked about and walked together in unison.

We need to make sure we continue to pull together and continue to support the community and school. For the parents to heal is a journey, and the journey has just begun.

I have been moved by the expressions of support from other local high school students too. Apparently, other students of the Cleveland area have gone Hilltopper red and black, which is the mascot, to show their support for other students. We are in the Chamber with some of our pages who are about the same age as these students and that show of support and love is appreciated and it shows the character of our State. We pull together in Ohio. We pull together in times of tragedy, through tears and through pain. We will get through this.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with my colleague about the tragedy and to be sure that in the Record we are memorializing this event and ensuring that those students whose lives have been cut short will all be remembered.

God bless Chardon and the Chardon community.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The Senator is absolutely right. I say to my colleagues from Texas and Missouri, they are right on in terms of the impact on Ohio families. I was home last week. In fact, I drove from Ohio to Washington last night. I had to fill up a couple of times on the way, and the price was over $3.70 a gallon. According to AAA, the average price now is over $2.70 a gallon.

This is impacting families. I have met with people who were in the trucking business and small operators who are trying to make ends meet. They are saying: Rob, I do not know how this is going to work because our gas prices keep going up at a time when our expenses are going up as well. They are getting squeezed out. Of course, higher prices for gas affect all of us as families, they affect everything we buy, because that cost is embedded there. So this is hurting our economy in very fundamental ways.

Record levels for this time of year. This is not just a seasonal issue. This is a longer term failure of an energy policy by the Obama administration. That is something we all need to focus on, not to just be critical of bad policies which have gotten us here, but how do we get out of it? What do we do? That is what I wish to talk about for a minute today.

Let me give you a couple of interesting numbers. The price of gas has increased by 94 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years, during the Obama administration. So you are talking about almost a 100-hundred percent increase in the cost of gasoline.

There was an all-time high last year of $2.53 a gallon, and again over $3.70 this year already. By the way, last year the average amount spent by a family in America for gasoline at the pump--over $4,000. So this is a big part of people's budgets. We have been hit hard. At a time when millions of Americans are struggling amid a continuing weak economy, it is particularly tough because budgets are already stretched thin.

We need to produce more, in my view. If you produce more, you are going to see prices come down. It is sort of the basic law of supply and demand. So right now we have demand around the world maybe picking up a little bit, and yet we are not producing as much as we should be. And, frankly, we are producing less than we have.

Let me give you some interesting numbers here that actually surprised me in terms of what the President is saying versus the facts. The President says we are producing more than we have in the past. The production of natural gas on public lands and waters went down 11 percent last year; decline in oil production, 14 percent. In the Gulf of Mexico, there was a 17-percent drop from 618 million barrels in 2010 to 514 in 2011.

The Senator from Texas talked about this. We are not seeing an increase; we are seeing a decrease. This is at a time when all of us, I hope, realize that we have to be focused on producing more here at home, one, so we can get prices down, and, two, so we can get less dependent on these dangerous and volatile parts of the world. If we do not do that, we are going to be subject to what happens in Libya or Iran and see gas prices spike up as we are seeing now. We have got to produce more and we have got to produce it here at home to get away from the OPEC cartel. Washington wastes time by not acting now to immediately expand that production.

The White House says you cannot immediately expand production because it takes some time. Well, all the more reason to get started with it, as the Senator from Texas has said. If we had started a few years ago, we would be in much better shape. But also the price of gasoline reflects what people think it is going to be in the future. So even if we made a commitment today to get busy on more domestic production, oil and natural gas, it would affect the price because it would affect what folks are thinking about what the future prices are going to be.

It does. I think most people get it. Because even if you do not have a degree in economics, and I do not, we understand the law of supply and demand works. So if you are going to cut the supply, as has happened, you are going to see prices go up.

Let me give you an example. In 2010, the President cancelled leases in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic. In 2011, he put forward a 5-year lease plan that reinstitutes a moratorium in the Atlantic, Pacific, halves the number of lease sales in the old plan. So, again, if supply is going down, you are likely to see prices go up. That is exactly what

has happened. He slowed down permits for deepwater and shallow water drilling in the gulf. He is now set to impose severe new regulations on oil refiners. That is going to further raise prices.

Speaking of oil refineries, that is a big part of the cost of gasoline. About 11 percent of the cost, according to the American Petroleum Institute, of the price of gasoline comes from refining. By putting more and more regulations and costs on refining, you are going to have an impact on prices as well that is negative and hurting our families.

The EPA, the cap-and-trade regime, did not get through the Congress. So they are moving ahead through regulations, causing a lot of uncertainty, a lack of construction of refineries. The first new refinery in a generation, in fact, has been delayed because of it.

This actually brings us to the second problem, I say to my colleagues from Missouri and Texas. This is not just about gas prices, as important as that is; it is about jobs. Because by stopping the construction of a refinery, we are putting new regulations on not allowing the kind of drilling we want to do in the State of Ohio to bring jobs, and you are hurting the very jobs Americans need to be able to pay their gas bill. These are good-paying jobs. They tend to be jobs that pay well, have good benefits. So a progrowth energy strategy does not just result in a more secure energy source, more reliable energy, it also results in more jobs, which we need desperately.

The President seems to be saying he is going to reverse course. In his State of the Union Address, he says he is for an all-of-the-above strategy. By the way, a week after that, do you know what he did? He rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, which--talk about all of the above-- we certainly should be from our strong ally to the North getting oil we need for our refineries to get the cost down.

By the way, that pipeline also picks up American oil. I bet you that our colleague from North Dakota is going to talk about that in a little while, because he has been Governor of North Dakota and understands the importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline. So whether it is the offshore drilling we talked about, moving ahead with drilling onshore, and exploration that can help create jobs and energy security, whether it is the Keystone XL Pipeline, whether, as I talked about in terms of the regulations on our refineries, there are things we can do and should do and do immediately, if we do these things to have more domestic energy production, yes, we will begin to see these prices go down and stabilize.

I come from Ohio. As the Senator from Missouri said, we have a tradition of producing oil and gas. It goes back to the turn of the century, the last century. Then we kind of got away from it for a while and people in Texas started producing a lot more oil and gas. We are back in the business, thanks to these shale finds. The Marcellus shale--it is the Utica shale, it is natural gas. But it is also oil and what they call wet gas, which is very valuable.

I will tell you, having spent a lot of time in eastern Ohio over the last several days, people are excited about this. It is bringing back good-paying jobs, allowing people to stay in these communities and be able to raise their families with not just a living wage but real hope for the future.

It also will have an effect on our gas prices. We have an opportunity, before things get worse, to come up with a different solution, a sensible national energy policy that stops our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and leads to more domestic production and therefore prices we can afford at the pump.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize Thomas Culbertson of Fremont, OH, for many years of outstanding leadership and service to The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center. A former college librarian and stockbroker, Mr. Culbertson began his service to the center in 1988 as a manuscripts curator and rose to the position of executive director in 2004.

Mr. Culbertson was instrumental in developing two workshop series for educators. The first series, ``History Links: A Partnership to Teach American History,'' helped 300 area schoolteachers implement State standards for social studies that focused on American history. The second series included three workshops for more than 200 community college faculty that focused on America's Gilded Age. Mr. Culbertson also led the effort to gain

accreditation for the Hayes Museum from the American Association of Museums in 2002.

Of utmost importance to Mr. Culbertson's legacy is the $1.2 million restoration of the first floor of the Hayes home to how it looked when our 19th President and his wife, Lucy, lived there. With the help of the late U.S. Representative Paul Gillmor, the Hayes Center was awarded a $400,000 Save America's Treasures grant through the U.S. Department of Interior. In addition, the center received $500,000 in State capital funding, and Mr. Culbertson helped raise $300,000 in donations to pay for the restoration. The project included replicating wallpaper, carpets, and other features that had been altered over the years. The home renovation will be completed in July 2012.

For his commitment to public service and the many contributions he has made to the Hayes Presidential Center, I would like to recognize and thank Mr. Culbertson for his years of service and wish him well in his retirement.

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

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

As the Presiding Officer knows, this week the President sent his budget to Congress. This happens every year. The budget is a document that determines what the spending will be and what the revenues will be not just for the next fiscal year but for a 10-year period. So it is a document about what the direction of our country ought to be. It is a vision for the country, if you will.

It is being sent to the Congress at a time when we face extraordinary fiscal challenges. We have a record debt of over $15 trillion. We have deficits that have been over $1 trillion a year for the last several years, and it looks as though this year, once again, it will be well over $1 trillion.

In comparison to previous years, we have a debt that is now as large as our entire economy, which is larger than at any time since World War II. In fact, as a country, we are spending more money at the Federal level than we ever have before--as a percent of GDP, more than we ever have since World War II. So these are times when we have a true fiscal crisis at our doorstep and we need to handle it.

We are borrowing over 35 cents of every $1 we spend at the Federal level. In that context, I have to say I am very disappointed in the budget proposal that was sent to us because it is simply not up to the challenges we face. It taxes too much, it borrows too much, and it spends too much. Unfortunately, it adds another $11 trillion to the national debt over this 10-year period--again, a debt that already tops 100 percent of our country's economy. It does nothing to change the fact that Social Security and Medicare are in trouble--very important programs, of course, but by not addressing them in this budget document it means what everybody knows, which is that unless we do something that will head toward solvency, this will continue to be the case.

Remarkably, I thought, the President proposes another $350 billion in a so-called stimulus bill within this budget and pays for it either in red ink, with more borrowing, or by raising taxes. It actually raises taxes by nearly $2 trillion over this 10-year period. This is despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office has told us that by raising taxes, we are going to hurt the economy. In fact, it would result in higher unemployment next year than this year.

We all know the long-term driver of these deficits is entitlement spending. These important programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with interest on the debt, are called the mandatory spending part of the budget. That is now a bigger and bigger part of the budget and the fastest growing part of the budget. It is 64 percent of the budget this year.

Under what the President has proposed, for the next 10 years, that mandatory spending--which means it is not subject to annual appropriations by Congress; again, important programs but not on a sustainable path--this mandatory spending will grow from 64 percent of the budget--where it is today, which has grown and grown over the years--to 78 percent of the budget in 10 years, under the budget proposal the President has put forward.

Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike, we know this is not sustainable. It is not sustainable and, unfortunately, it is going to hurt these programs in a way that is going to make it very difficult for our seniors and others who rely on them.

Overall, the President's promise of deficit reduction also does not look like it works. The budget claims $5.3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. However, if we look at it, that $5.3 trillion does not come from spending cuts. Looking at a budget table, table 3--and I ask folks at home to take a look at this--99.9 percent of that $5.3 trillion in so-called deficit reduction does not come from spending cuts, it comes from tax increases--almost $2 trillion--a savings that is considered to be a gimmick of saying we are not going to spend as much in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everybody knows we are not going to spend as much there. Yet they take credit for that. Already enacted spending caps--remember, the discretionary spending caps were put in place, the so-called sequestration or across-the-board cuts, they take credit for those which have already been enacted and then, finally, the net interest savings from all those policies, which is about $800 billion, they say.

So again, almost all that so-called deficit reduction over the next decade comes not from spending cuts but, in fact, from either gimmicks, tax increases or things Congress has already done. That leaves very little--about $4 billion out of the $5.3 trillion--that is truly spending reductions.

By the way, on top of that, in the so-called baseline that the President bases his numbers off of--in other words, we have to determine what would the spending otherwise be--in that baseline, there is another $479 billion in new spending on Pell grants, the Medicare doc fix, and so on.

So the spending savings completely vanish when we put all that together. That is not the kind of budget we need right now.

Last year, the President submitted a budget that I thought was a good political document, also, but did not address our budget problems, and we took it to the floor of this Senate for a vote. In the Senate, last year, the President's budget was voted on by Republicans and Democrats, and it lost by a vote of 97 to 0.

I do not know how this budget would do if it came to the floor, but I am not sure it would fare much better because, frankly, when we look at this objectively, it is hard to say it addresses the very real problems we face. These are problems that relate to our spending and relate to the fact that we have these big deficits and debt, but also it relates to what is going on at kitchen tables all over America, which is people are having a harder time finding work, keeping jobs, making ends meet.

The economy is tough in my own State of Ohio. We not only have high unemployment, but we have record numbers of weeks where people have been on unemployment--approximately 40 weeks now. We have a lot of people who have given up looking for work altogether. Unless we get this budget deficit and debt under control and add more predictability and certainty to our economy and to what is going to happen with these huge deficits and debt that seem to be taking us toward what is happening in Greece, Italy or Spain--unless we do that, we are not going to be able to turn this economy around and give people the kind of confidence they are looking for to be able to make investments and move our country forward.

There are some other folks who are with me in the Chamber today. I would like to ask them if they would not mind talking about their budget perspective, what they see in this budget, the concerns they might have, and the ideas we have to try to improve our fiscal situation, therefore, our economy.

I see the ranking member of the Budget Committee is here.

I say to Senator Sessions, I know he wants to speak briefly on this issue.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership on the Budget Committee.

I see we have also been joined by one of our new Members, a freshman Member, who comes from the business side of things. He ran a manufacturing company, so he has an interesting perspective on Federal budgeting. I love to ask folks who are in business: Could you see doing business where you were borrowing 35 cents of every $1 you spent? The answer is: I wouldn't stay in business very long.

With that, I would like to hear from Senator Johnson of Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson for his perspective, and it is very helpful.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Toomey. I appreciate his focusing on the progrowth elements because, as I said at the outset, a budget is an opportunity to set the Nation on a 10-year course, both on the spending side--how much should the government spend--but also on the revenue side. That means we are getting into how to grow the economy because the right tax reform will generate more growth. That growth will generate more revenue in the right way.

Unfortunately, if we look at the proposal the President has made, it does nothing to help improve our economic growth. In fact, when the dividend tax was moved down to 15 percent, it was done so because, as Senator Toomey has rightfully pointed out, it is a double tax. In other words, it has already been taxed once at the company level. So when we get a dividend paid, we should not have to pay a high tax on it again.

In fact, because of that double taxation, as he has indicated, there will be a tax--total tax of over 60 percent. By the way, in the President's budget, the dividend tax was increased from 15 percent to 39.6 percent for some taxpayers. Then, as Senator Toomey has said, we can add the surcharge that comes from the health care bill and get it up into the forties for the individual.

Most people did not expect that. It is an example where this budget actually went further in terms of trying to, again, tax people more and therefore have less growth than anyone expected. Most people thought it would go from 15 percent to 20 percent or 25 percent, but not all of the way to--almost tripling the tax on dividends.

So it is an example where, in this budget, there was an opportunity to lay out a pro-growth path that included tax reform. Instead, we are building on our current antiquated, inefficient tax system and just lopping more taxes on top, including taxes on capital gains and on dividends that will make it more difficult for us to have the kind of investment we need to get this economy moving again.

The President, when he ran for election in 2008, pledged to reform entitlements. Senator Toomey talked about the fact that he has continued to talk about that, the need for it. I certainly agree with that, as do, by the way, most of my colleagues in the Senate, Democrat and Republican alike.

The budget, of course, does nothing to help. In fact, it increases the cost significantly on entitlements, as Senator Toomey has said, an 8-percent increase on average for these important programs. But that puts them on an unsustainable footing when the economy will not be growing nearly that fast.

Instead of doing something to reform these programs, making them work better, the President is just continuing to pile on more entitlements. But in 2008 the President also said he was going to cut the deficit in half. At that time the deficit that first year of his administration was $1.4 trillion. He proposed to cut it in half over the 4-year term. So now we are in 2012, the final of his 4 years--fiscal year--and their estimate for the deficit this year--from the Office of Management and Budget, from the Congressional Budget Office--is that we will be over $1.3 trillion.

So it does not sound like he has cut the deficit in half. Some will say, well, it is less as a percent of our economy. That is true. Our economy has grown some. But it is still not close to cutting it in half. A lot of things happen during a Presidential term. But I would hope that the President, in putting forward a budget, would have put forward a serious effort to reduce the deficit significantly, to get this economy back on track and prepare for, again, this unsustainable growth in entitlements by truly reforming the programs to make them work better and to make them sustainable over time.

We still have the opportunity to do that in the Senate. It is an election year, but we still have 8 or 9 months until the election. We should get busy working together as Republicans and Democrats, not follow the President's budget because, unfortunately, it does not provide the guidance we need. But we need to follow what all of us know in our hearts has to be done, which is grow the economy through pro- growth, sensible approaches such as tax reform, regulatory relief, and using more of our own natural resources in this country. We can help grow the economy on the one hand and, therefore, create revenue.

Then, second, we ought to do everything we can to reform these programs to make them sustainable, to reduce annually appropriated spending in ways that are responsible--not just to our kids and grandkids, as important as that is, but to today's economy to ensure that we can, indeed, have a strong recovery that all of us hope for and begin to bring people back to the workforce, create jobs, get this economy moving again, and give people that dignity and self-respect that comes from work.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to talk about this budget.

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