Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the President's budget, which he submitted today. In an era of trillion- dollar deficits and historic debt and the greatest level of government spending since World War II, I believe the President's submission today was not a responsible budget. Instead of keeping his campaign promise to cut the deficit in half in his first term, this budget assumes continued deficits this year and next in the trillion-dollar range.

Given the promises President Obama made when he came to the White House and how poorly the last budget was received by Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress--in fact, it was voted on here on the floor of the Senate, and it was defeated by a vote of 97 to 0--given those things, I hoped President Obama would step forward and turn the rhetoric into action and put forward a responsible budget to deal with the fiscal problems our government faces--no more punting, no more gimmicks, a real budget that honestly faces the fiscal crisis we have and helps put us back on track. Instead, we see a document today that is really more tailored toward campaign talking points than really addressing the long-term solvency of the Federal Government.

The President begins by proposing a new $350 billion in stimulus bill. By the way, that is $350 billion with no offsets--in other words, no spending reductions to pay for it.

The President's budget then claims $5.3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. As I have looked at this budget today, it seems to me that only a minuscule amount of this is from new spending cuts. In fact, as I read this budget, 99.9 percent of the claimed deficit reduction consists of the following: No. 1, tax increases, about $1.9 trillion; No. 2, Iraq, Afghanistan war savings, which is viewed by most here in Congress, both sides of the aisle, as a gimmick--in other words, spending money that was not going to be spent anyway--$848 billion; No. 3, already enacted discretionary caps and entitlement changes, primarily from the Budget Control Act, these so-called sequesters or across-the-board spending cuts that Congress has already enacted, and that is $1.7 trillion; and then finally net interest savings from those policies, which the budget says is going to be $800 billion.

Out of the claimed $5.3 trillion in deficit reduction, that leaves about .1 percent--$4 billion--of the claimed savings over the decade. So 99.9 percent of the deficit reduction he claims is through tax increases or, again, changes in spending that either have already occurred or they are not going to occur. On top of that, the President hid in his baseline--in the baseline he assumes for his spending, he hides about $479 billion in new spending. Now, this is on Pell grants and on the Medicare doc fix. So the claimed savings--even the $4 billion--vanish completely.

Overall, when compared to the current policy baseline, the President would tax $4 trillion more and spend about $2 trillion more over the next 10 years of this budget. The yearly deficit would end the decade in the $600 billion range, even assuming peace, prosperity, and historically low interest rates. The national debt over the next 10 years would rise by $11 trillion, for a total debt of over $25 trillion 10 years from now.

The main tax hike would end the 2001-2003 tax cuts for singles making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000. There will be a lot of debate on the floor regarding this tax policy over the next year as we come to the end of the year when all of these tax cuts--$5 trillion of them--are scheduled to end, but just with regard to this tax hike, this will result in lower economic growth and more job losses according to the Congressional Budget Office. They have now testified before the Budget Committee as to the fact that this will result in higher unemployment next year. This is in large part because, according to Internal Revenue Service data, 48 percent of small business income would be subject to higher taxes under this budget proposal.

I support tax reform. I think it is important. But simply taking the current

code and adding higher tax rates is going to have an impact on small businesses and therefore on our economy and on jobs. This is ultimately about jobs. It is about everyday economic concerns people in Ohio and around the country have.

In this budget document, we do see some honesty, but it does not make me optimistic at all. Acknowledging the impact this budget will have on the economy, the President's budget actually concedes unemployment rates next year higher than this year, and the year after higher than this year. His prediction is that unemployment rates will be 8.9 percent in 2012 and 8.6 percent in 2013--totally unacceptable and a testament to the fact that Washington cannot continue to rely on short- term sweeteners and budget spending gimmicks to grow our economy and get the country out of this fiscal mess.

Again, I am disappointed in the budget we have seen today. I hope the Senate will work its will, put together its own budget, taking the President's budget and other ideas but then coming up with something that actually does address the very real fiscal problems we face, bring such a budget to the floor of the Senate, have it debated by both sides, and work out what we have not done in this Senate for over 1,000 days, which is prepare a blueprint for the fiscal and economic future of our country. Until we get such a budget, I fear we will continue to see this lack of economic growth and job loss that all of us would like to see addressed.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity today to recognize the remarkable achievements of a former Senator from Ohio. The State of Ohio is known as the birthplace of aviation, it is the home of the Wright Brothers and the home to 24 astronauts. I have the privilege of calling two of these astronauts, Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, my friends. Today, I would like to take a few minutes to commemorate the tremendous achievement of one of these heroes by celebrating the upcoming 50th anniversary of the historic 1962 flight of NASA's Mercury Spacecraft, nicknamed Friendship 7.

Fifty years ago on February 20, 1962, Friendship 7, piloted by John Glenn, performed 3 successful orbits of the Earth at 17,400 miles per hour, and made John Glenn the first American to orbit the earth. While in orbit, John Glenn performed a series of breakthrough experiments to test human ability to function in the weightlessness of space. He then successfully piloted the spacecraft manually after a malfunction in the automatic flight controls, overcoming severe oscillation and a dwindling fuel supply during reentry, and completing the mission by landing the spacecraft safely in the Atlantic Ocean 4 hours, 55 minutes and 23 seconds after initial launch. He returned a national hero.

His historic flight inspired scientific curiosity and national enthusiasm for further space exploration, paving the way for America's continued dominance in space operations.

In 1998 Senator Glenn again demonstrated his tremendous courage and reentered space at the age of 77, aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery, to examine the effect of space flight on the elderly.

Space exploration is not, however, Senator Glenn's only remarkable achievement. He set the transcontinental speed record in 1957 for the first flight to average supersonic speed, flying at an average speed of 723 miles per hour, from Los Angeles to New York. Then in 1996 Senator Glenn set a new record, along with co-pilot Phillip Woodruff, of an average speed of 229 miles per hour in a 367-mile flight from Dayton, Ohio to Washington, DC.

In addition to these contributions to scientific exploration and NASA, John Glenn gave 23 years of service to the U.S. Marine Corps; is a veteran of two foreign wars; flew 149 combat missions; was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross five times; and retired a colonel in 1965.

Ten years later he began a career in the U.S. Senate, contributing 24 years of service as a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio from 1975 to 1999.

In 1998 the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy at The Ohio State University was created and Senator Glenn became an adjunct professor in OSU's School of Public Policy and Management in the Department of Political Science.

Then, in 2006 the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy merged with the School of Public Policy and Management to form the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University, which prepares future generations of public servants. I myself have had the privilege of co-teaching four classes at the Glenn School and have the honor of serving on its board of advisors along with Senator Glenn and his incredible wife Annie. She has been a tremendous partner for Senator Glenn through all of these experiments we have been talking about tonight.

Senator Glenn's tremendous achievements have paved the way for future generations to follow in his footsteps by continuing to make the United States a global leader in science, technology, education, military service and public service. I once again commend Senator John Glenn on the success of his historic 1962 flight aboard NASA Spacecraft Friendship 7.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kyl in supporting the balanced budget amendment that Senators Lee and Hatch have crafted. I commend them for their hard work, and I particularly thank Senator Hatch for his principled leadership over the years in this effort. In the mid-1990s he almost got us to a balanced budget amendment to send to the States, and this time I hope he--showing his leadership again--will be successful.

Washington's runaway spending and crippling debt burden underscore the need for us to have a balanced budget in this country. If Washington doesn't stop spending more than it takes in, I fear there will be an economic collapse, and, perhaps more profoundly, it will threaten the very foundation of our Nation--the freedom of individuals to thrive and to prosper.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the huge debt burden we have is already crippling the economy. There was a recent study done by respected economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that shows that the debt burden of 90 percent of the economy will reduce a country's economic growth by 1 or 2 percentage points. Our gross debt right now is 100 percent of our economy. Growth this year is likely to be closer to 2 percent total, pretty weak growth. So 1 percent to 2 percent more would mean a 50-percent or even a 100-percent growth increase in this country. This means over 1 million new jobs could be created right now if we didn't have these huge deficits building up annually to a record debt that is now over $15 trillion.

It is unacceptable that we have the economic growth that we do because it

is keeping people from achieving the opportunities they seek at a time when there are almost 22 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, and we need to do everything we can to give the economy a shot in the arm. Part of it is getting our fiscal house in order and stopping this record deficit and debt. We should not condemn people to chronic unemployment through inaction in Washington.

However much lawmakers at times want to do the right thing, it seems as though the political system and the budget rules around here create a bias for spending and deficits. When I left the post as Director of the Office Management and Budget in the last Presidential administration--that was in 2007--the budget deficit was $161 billion, which is about 12 percent of today's budget deficit, and I thought that was way too high. In fact, that year I proposed, on behalf of the President, a budget that actually balanced over a 5-year period because at that time we were so concerned about growing deficits and debts. Again, that was only 12 percent of today's deficit.

In that time, as OMB Director, I was convinced that we need to have a discipline in Washington to balance the budget because we need to have some incentive to prioritize. Washington, again, seems to have this bias toward spending and deficits that I think can only be resolved through what 49 States have, which, again, is this power to be able to tell the elected representatives that we have to figure out how to prioritize; we have to figure out how, at the end of the day what every family in America does, what every business in America does, which is to figure out how not to spend more than we take in.

Study and experience led the Founders of our country to create the best system of government ever devised: a Republic with enumerated powers. Similarly, study and experience should lead us to enact a balanced budget amendment. The times demand it. We need to reverse this system's bias in favor of deficits and debts. We need a balanced budget amendment in order to preserve the Founders' vision of a limited government of enumerated powers.

But the fact is, Congress has not been able to get its spending under control through any other means. Some have called for a far higher tax rate. In other words, instead of dealing with the spending that is increasing dramatically--by the way, spending has gone up 21 percent just in the last three years. But instead of dealing with that, people say: Why don't you just raise taxes to catch up with the spending? That way we would have a balanced budget through higher and higher revenues.

I guess what I would say is, Congress has a spending problem not a revenue problem. The growth in the entitlement programs, of course, is the long-term driver of this spending problem. The cost of these entitlements, along with interest on the debt, is projected to squeeze out the cost of every other Federal program within the next couple of decades, leaving little to nothing for other government priorities.

People say, well, the revenues as a percent of our economy are relatively low now, and that is true. Coming out of the recession, we have not had the growth we had hoped for and that has resulted in lower tax revenues coming in.

Historically, tax revenues have been 18 percent of our economy. Today they are lower than that and closer to 14.5 to 15 percent. Spending has been at about 20 percent of our economy historically since World War II. Today, that spending is over 24 percent of our economy.

What happens over the next several years, based on the Congressional Budget Office analysis, is the revenues begin to increase as a percent of the economy even if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief is not continued. In that case, the revenues increase even more dramatically up to 21 percent or 22 percent of the economy.

So the fact is, the spending is on a trajectory to go up from a historic 20 percent to 24 percent now to 30 percent to 40 percent to 50 percent over the decades. We cannot catch that spending with enough taxes. It simply cannot be done and have a viable economy. So we have to deal with the spending side of the ledger. Even if we do raise taxes to chase the trajectory, we will upset that balance between the Federal Government and a free, robust private sector that encourages innovation and gets people back to work.

If the Federal Government ends up taxing every dollar of earnings, we will have taken away the space for Americans to pursue and enjoy the rewards of their hard work, risk-taking and innovation. The Founders might have used another phrase to describe what a free economy promotes: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today we are talking about how we ensure that we have economic growth so that we can bring back the jobs, and that will not happen through the level of taxation that would be required to catch up to the record levels of spending.

To address Washington's natural inclination toward taxing and spending, a successful balanced budget amendment needs to do more than just require the outlays be less or equal to receipts. Again, it should include a spending cap because of the problems I have talked about with regard to the projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office over the coming years and decades. It should also demand a supermajority should Congress seek to enact antigrowth tax hikes.

I think this balanced budget amendment, crafted by Senators Hatch and Lee, by doing that strikes a good balance. It also addresses the concern about a balanced budget amendment limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend in a time of war. If there is a declaration of war against a nation-state, a majority vote in both Houses would allow for deficit spending. If the Armed Forces are engaged in a military conflict that has not been given a full declaration of war, a three-fifths vote in both Houses would allow for deficit spending. This is in keeping with the intention of the Founders.

In Federalist 34, Alexander Hamilton drew a distinction between monarchies and republics. He said, the chief source of expense in every government was defense spending. But republics, Hamilton counseled, should not use this to live beyond their means. He wrote:

There should be as great a disproportion between the

profusion and extravagance of a wealthy kingdom in its

domestic administration, and the frugality and economy which

in that particular become the modest simplicity of republican

government.

Washington has spent and overspent. This has led us away from that frugality that was the intention of our Founders. A balanced budget is the only way to get back to frugality and to that ``modest simplicity of republican government.'' And that is republican with a small ``r.''

If we don't restrain spending through a balanced budget amendment, we will effectively inhibit and ultimately undermine the liberty of the Americans. We will threaten the American dream, the hope that each generation is able to pass on to the next generation a better life so that they are able to flourish and to meet, again, their achievements, their objectives in life through opportunity that can be created through a growing economy.

It is time for Congress to prioritize. It is time for Congress to make tough decisions. We should do it with the discipline of a balanced budget. Time has shown us there is a need for a requirement to make those decisions.

My home State of Ohio has that discipline. In fact, over the past year, Ohio has had to make some tough decisions to close a budget gap of about $8 billion. Here in Washington, we have a budget gap that is far higher. This year the government will bring in about $2.2 trillion and spend about $3.7 trillion. This gap is huge and growing, and just as 49 States do, we need to discipline Washington to force Congress to make these tough decisions to prioritize on behalf of the American people so that we don't have this crippling effect on economic growth, so that we can begin to see the kind of robust recovery we hope for coming out of the recession.

For all these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of our Nation's nurses and to thank them for their service to patients across this Nation. Nurses are among the largest group of health professionals and are on the front lines of our healthcare delivery system. Each day people with different health needs are served by legions of educated, qualified, and professional nurses.

Our Nation's nurses help to ensure that Americans receive quality health care and that our Nation's public health infrastructure remains strong. I recently had the opportunity to meet with nurses who visited our Nation's capital through the Nurses in Washington Internship Program. This group is made up of a coalition of nursing organizations united to promote a strong voice in advocating for the nursing community.

In closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the nurses in my home State of Ohio and across the country for their service to the American public.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Mount Notre Dame High School Volleyball team for winning their sixth Ohio Division I State volleyball title on Saturday, November 12, 2011. Mount Notre Dame is an all-girls Catholic school located in Cincinnati,

The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right, and I appreciate his passion on this issue. He has the whole Senate focused on the idea of repatriating profits from overseas back to America to invest in jobs and growth, and he has now focused us on the need to reform the Tax Code on the individual side and on the corporate side.

On the individual side, as he talked about, we have an incredibly complex Tax Code--thousands and thousands of pages. By lowering the rates and broadening the base--getting rid of some of this underbrush-- we will create economic growth. It is a necessary shot in the arm right now with over 9 percent unemployment.

On the corporate side, right now we have a corporate rate that is the second highest in the world among all developed countries. The highest is Japan, and they want to lower theirs. This means jobs are going overseas instead of staying here. By lowering the rate, getting them down to the average of these other countries, we will bring more investment back to this country.

By bringing the rate down to 25 percent on a revenue- neutral basis, what we do is get rid of a lot of the preferences, the exclusions, the credits, the tax deductions that enable companies right now to pay little or no taxes. We think everybody should be paying taxes. We think everybody should be subject to a fair tax system. We also think we shouldn't have to spend billions a year in complying with a Tax Code that is so complex. So instead of hiring more tax lawyers, we want people to get out there and hire more Americans to do the work--productive work--to get our economy moving.

Tax reform is a way to give this economy a shot in the arm right now. It is one of many structural reforms that is in this legislation that the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona have put together with me. It is very consistent with this idea that America's best days are ahead of her, if we restructure some of these basic parts of our economy: Tax reform, necessary; lowering health care costs, absolutely critical; allowing us to explore for energy on our shores and create jobs and economic opportunity; being sure we are reducing the regulations that are strangling small businesses. These are all structural reforms we can and should do. By the way, there is bipartisan support for every single one of those elements.

So I commend the Senator from Arizona for raising these issues, for his passion for them, and the Senator from Kentucky. I hope the Senate will give us the opportunity to vote on this, and it should be a bipartisan vote because so many of these issues are issues that transcend partisanship, and in each case there are Democrats and Republicans who understand the need to move our economy forward by making these structural changes.

Absolutely. That is one of the elements of this jobs bill. It was particularly tough on defense bills because we have our national defense at stake and we have our soldiers and marines and sailors out there, and the bill comes to the President of the United States, and is he going to sign it? If he doesn't sign it, there is a risk there will be at least a gap in funding; if not, as you say, be overturned. So there is a lot of pressure to sign it.

What happened, the President signed these pieces of legislation with the earmarks in them, and we have more spending than we should and spending is not going to the priorities. It is not going to the national priorities.

So this legislation is simple. It says, back in the late 1990s, 1996, Clinton signed a line-item veto bill. Constitutionally, it was questionable, and sure enough the Supreme Court overturned it. Now we have come back with another way to do this so-called enhanced

rescission, but it is basically a legislative line-item veto where Congress would have the right to be able to review what the President rescinded. If they didn't act within a short period of time, it would be rescinded. The Congress could act to overturn the President.

We believe it is constitutional, meets all the obligations that were set out in that Supreme Court case that overturned the first line-item veto and yet puts the pressure on the Congress not to put this porkbarrel spending in, and if they do, we would have the light of day shone on it and Congress would have to individually take up these line items, these porkbarrel projects.

We think this is a constructive way forward that is constitutional, that meets all the concerns that have been raised, and would help to get the spending down and to prioritize spending at a time when we have record deficits and debt.

Absolutely. Let me give an example of where we could come together on something simple, and again it is something the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky have included in their legislation.

Everybody knows the Federal regulators are putting more and more pressure on small businesses all around the country. We hear it every time we go home. I can't think of a time I have been home at a plant tour where somebody hasn't raised with me a Federal regulation that is causing them difficulty because it is increasing the cost of hiring somebody.

At a time of over 9 percent unemployment, we have to do everything we can to get this economy moving, and one is to lessen that regulatory burden and make sure it is smart.

So one of the pieces of the legislation we are promoting is to say to the Federal agencies: Go through a cost-benefit analysis, including looking at what the impact is going to be on jobs. Who could be against that? That needs to be done not just in the so-called executive branch agencies but also in the independent agencies which are not subject to these current cost-benefit rules. It is more cost-benefit rules looking at jobs but also making sure everybody has to comply with it.

Then, when they come up with an idea for a regulation, make sure it is consistent with the policy of the elected representatives because too often we will see the regulators go off on their own and come up with ideas that they think might be good for the economy. That is one reason we have--according to some statistics now--as much of a cost on the economy from regulations as from taxes.

Finally, it says when you come up with something, it has to be the least burdensome alternative. If the EPA had done this, for instance, in some of the legislation that the Senator is concerned about, the Senator from Kentucky, they would not be able to come up with huge new costs on business because they would have to come up with a cost- effective way to meet the policies set out by the Congress. They don't have to do that now. Who could be against that?

So these are specific items that are within this bigger project of getting America back on track, increasing our jobs, dealing with the fact that America's competitiveness is at risk that are commonsense, bipartisan ideas everyone should be able to agree with.

I again encourage the Senate to allow us to have a vote. Let's encourage a full debate on both sides of the aisle. Let's have a bipartisan vote on it. Let's show people whom, after all, we are elected to represent that we can come together as Republicans and Democrats and deal with the real problems facing our economy.

Mr. President, on this week of Veteran's Day, I rise today to recognize SGT Thomas R. Gdovin, of Cleveland, OH, for the exceptional bravery he displayed in combat on March 8, 1968, in Vietnam while assigned to the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division. Earlier today I presented the Silver Star, one of our Nation's highest honors for gallantry in military service, to former SGT Thomas Gdovin here in Washington, DC.

SGT Thomas R. Gdovin enlisted into the U.S. Army on July 5, 1966, and served in the 101st Airborne Division. Today, during a ceremony over 40 years in the making, he received the Silver Star for his bravery during the Vietnam war when he risked his own life to save a wounded soldier during combat. I was honored to have Mr. Dan Phillips, the soldier rescued, attend the ceremony alongside Mr. Gdovin's family and friends in celebration of this well deserved honor.

I am honored to read the Silver Star Citation detailing Sergeant Gdovin's brave actions into the Record.

The President of the United States of America, authorized

by Act of Congress, 9 July 1918, has awarded the Silver Star

to: Sergeant Thomas R. Gdovin, 502d Infantry Regiment, 2d

Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) For Gallantry:

in action on 8 March 1968, while serving as Squad Leader with

1st Platoon, Company D, 1st Battalion, 502d Infantry

Regiment, 2d Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) in

support of operations in the Republic of Vietnam. Sergeant

Gdovin's squad became the company's lead element during an

attack on enemy forces when they received intense automatic

weapons and rocket fire. The lead Soldier in the formation

was severely wounded and was unable to move in an area open

to enemy fire. Sergeant Gdovin placed the squad into

defensive positions and suppressed enemy fire. He then left

the defensive position and with complete disregard for his

own personal safety and advanced across open terrain toward

the wounded soldier, exposing himself to intense enemy fire.

Sergeant Gdovin then reached the wounded soldier and under

continued fire, brought him back to safety of the squad's

position, where we was further evacuated. Sergeant Gdovin's

actions are in keeping with the finest traditions of military

service and reflect great credit upon himself, the 101st

Airborne Division (Airmobile) and the United States Army.

This is truly an exceptional story and I was honored to play a small role in recognizing Sergeant Gdovin. This ceremony was an opportunity to say thank you to all veterans. We can never forget that they gave their time, risked their health, and even placed their lives on the line. This not only means honoring their sacrifices, but also honoring our promises and commitments to them as well. Let us ensure that we honor and remember all our veterans, not just this week but throughout the days and years to come. Their commitment to this Nation is a shining example to all of us.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the late civil rights leader, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who passed away earlier this month. From his humble beginnings in Mount Meigs, AL, he grew to become one of the most influential leaders in the battle for civil rights. Reverend Shuttlesworth was best known as cofounder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was formed in response to the Montgomery bus boycott, and for the role he played in the sit- ins of lunch counters in 1960 and the Freedom Rides of 1961.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. considered Reverend Shuttlesworth one of the Nation's most courageous freedom fighters. Reverend Shuttlesworth was beaten, assaulted, jailed, and had his

home bombed because of his outspoken views and his fight for racial equality.

In 1953, he became the presiding pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL. He continued his call to preach in Cincinnati, OH, from 1961-1966 where he pastored the Revelation Baptist Church. Reverend Shuttlesworth remained in Cincinnati during his latter years and returned to Birmingham after his retirement in 2007. During that time, he continued his fight for racial equality and became a strong advocate for the homeless.

Although Reverend Shuttlesworth is no longer with us, his contributions to our Nation will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 859, which is a germane amendment to the underlying bill. It is one I introduced that would restore fairness, encourage competition, and prevent many States around the country from seeing cost increases in the price of guardrails. This amendment specifically addresses the Transportation bill we are talking about and addresses one of the new provisions in the bill this year that is a mandate that I think is not appropriate.

A lot of States have infrastructure challenges right now, and the last thing we should be doing here in the Congress is making it more difficult for States to pay for their infrastructure with the limited transportation dollars they have. With the fiscal crisis we have, we have to make sure now more than ever that States have the flexibility to meet the requirements from the Federal Government.

At a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and we have over 14 million Americans out of work, we should be doing everything we can to protect jobs. This amendment would hurt jobs, and this amendment I am offering would give States more flexibility to help keep some jobs.

There are countless miles of guardrails in our country, and many of those are manufactured in my home State of Ohio. Those manufacturers galvanize the guardrails to prevent corrosion, and they have two options on the process they use to galvanize the metal as well as two options with regard to the thickness of the zinc they use in the galvanization process.

In terms of the galvanization process, the first method is called continuous galvanization, where a company treats the flat steel with zinc and then fabricates the guardrail afterward. The second method is called batch galvanization, where the company dips the final product in a zinc bath after they have completed the fabrication.

In addition, there are two types of zinc thickness options for the guardrail. Type 1 requires a thinner coat of zinc, and type 2 requires a thicker coat of zinc, which increases the life of the guardrail. A lot of States around the country, including Ohio, require type 2, which is the thicker kind of zinc, for all of their guardrails, and that is due to the harsher conditions that cause metal to erode more quickly. However, Ohio is one of those States that, although they require type 2, allow for continuous galvanization or the batch galvanization process--either one.

It was a great surprise to me to read the legislation before us. The underlying bill says the States are prohibited from using any kind of guardrail unless it is type 2, plus it is produced through this batch galvanization process. So it is a mandate. Again, it has never been in this legislation before. It says it has to be type 2, meaning the thicker type zinc, and has to be applied using a particular process, so it is micromanaging the process.

The life of a guardrail, as you can imagine, is entirely dependent on the thickness of the zinc but also on the environment into which it is placed.

There are 15 States that still approve type 1. These States have less extreme environments where corrosion occurs more slowly, and the extra thickness of zinc is not needed. Without this amendment, they would be forced to buy a more expensive product that they don't want and don't need. By the way, those States are Mississippi, Virginia, Delaware, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, New Jersey, Colorado, Utah, Texas, California, Montana, and Wyoming.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has weighed in on this issue. They have said:

Requiring all galvanized steel to meet type 2 could add

unnecessary expense for many States where the added thickness

of galvanization is not needed. We know that type 1

galvanizing will protect guardrail components in many

locations for the typical 20-year life design. The extra cost

of type 2 galvanizing may be unwarranted.

That is the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The Ohio Department of Transportation has said that while they only use type 2 materials, ``ODOT does not have a preference as to how galvanizing occurs.'' They do not have a preference for a particular species of guardrail, as both have been found to have very similar properties to one another. They would prefer that their flexibility to use both kinds remains intact. That is the Ohio Department of Transportation. They don't want to be told they can't use the process many of them use now, which is continuous galvanization.

The primary manufacturer of continuous galvanization guardrails is Gregory Industries, located in Canton, OH. It was founded in 1896. It is a privately owned company currently run by the fourth and fifth generations of the Gregory family. These guardrails make up about 75 percent of the Gregorys' business, and about 99 percent of the guardrails they make are made through this continuous galvanization process that would be prohibited under the legislation. In addition, about 30 percent of their sales come from type 1 guardrails, which would be prohibited under the legislation. So the language as it stands would be devastating for this one company and put 125 jobs in their Canton, OH, facility at risk.

By the way, the guardrails they produce are approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in a document called the M-180 that dictates what is acceptable and what is not.

The type of products the current language would prohibit, by the way, have been in use in all 50 States in the country, and the continuous process for galvanizing guardrails that would be prohibited has been around for 50 years.

The bottom line is that we should not give this Ohio company or any company an advantage. We should allow competition to determine this and let the States determine it. Why come up with a new mandate that micromanages this process at a time when we are all trying to save dollars and use them more efficiently? So this amendment seeks to strike the language that would limit the flexibility of States and place additional costs in cases where it does make sense to use type 1 or it does make sense to use this continuous galvanization.

I urge the Senate take a commonsense approach, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I know my colleague may have some thoughts on this, but, in summary, I would ask through this amendment to strike the language that would limit the flexibilities of States and encourage support of amendment No. 859.

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

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

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Bruce H. Akers, mayor of Pepper Pike, OH, for many years of outstanding leadership and service to the Greater Cleveland community. Mayor Akers has done remarkable work during his distinguished career as a leader in the business and civic community to improve the quality of life for his fellow citizens. On Thursday, October 20, 2011 the Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association will honor Mayor Akers with the George V. Voinovich Public Service Award.

Mayor Akers' work as a civic leader started more than 50 years ago when he began his career in banking with National City Bank. Although Mayor Akers retired in 2000 as senior vice president for civic affairs at KeyBank, he has continued his vigorous efforts to serve his community as a civic volunteer and local elected officeholder. Throughout the years, Mayor Akers has held leadership positions in organizations such as City Year of Cleveland, Park Works, the Chagrin Valley Inter-Governmental Council, The Salvation Army of Greater Cleveland, and United Way Services. He was also one of the founders of Business Volunteers Unlimited. In June of 2000 he completed 30 years as a member of the National Board of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America and is currently a member of its National Advisory Council.

Mayor Akers has had a distinguished political career, beginning with his work as a precinct committeeman in 1960. Since that time, he has served on the staff of Cleveland mayor Ralph J. Perk, as a Pepper Pike councilman, and as president of the Cuyahoga County Mayors of Managers Association. He was appointed in 2008 to serve on the nine-member Commission on Cuyahoga County Government Reform and has been integral in recent years to the reform and transformation of the new charter form of government in Cuyahoga County. This year, Bruce Akers will retire from elected office after serving five terms as Mayor of Pepper Pike, OH.

For his commitment to public service and the many contributions he has made to Pepper Pike and the Greater Cleveland community, I would like to recognize and thank Mayor Bruce H. Akers for his years of service and wish him well as he continues his many civic endeavors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers, SMART, Act with Senators Wyden, Burr and Ben Nelson. This bi-partisan effort will help strengthen and protect Medicare by ensuring greater reliability and efficiency of Medicare reimbursements. The SMART Act proposes common- sense solutions to problems in the current Medicare Secondary Payer, MSP, system, at no cost to the American taxpayer. With Washington's sky high debt and deficit, we need to do everything we can to ensure that vital entitlement programs, such as Medicare, are cost effective and working for the very people they were designed to help.

Under the MSP program, if a Medicare beneficiary is injured by a third party and a settlement is pursued as a result of that injury, the third party is responsible for paying for the individual's medical expenses. If Medicare, now the ``secondary payer,'' pays any of the costs associated with the injury, it is entitled to reimbursement.

Numerous problems exist with the current MSP system; each of these are addressed by the SMART Act.

Under current law, Medicare does not have a pathway to disclose their MSP amount until after a case has been settled or adjusted--which creates an uncertainty that impedes beneficiaries and third parties from reaching a legal settlement. This legislation creates a process that allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to disclose this information before settlement, so it can be factored into the settlement.

Second, Medicare often spends more money pursuing an MSP payment than they actually receive in payment. This bill requires that Medicare no longer pursue MSP claims that do not cover their own expenses.

Additionally, the MSP system requires complex and extensive reporting requirements from those who settle a claim involving Medicare. If all required information is not 100 percent accurate and on-time, the company is fined $1,000 per claim, per day. The SMART Act provides CMS with leeway to issue smaller fines and provides safe harbor to protect companies that make

good faith efforts to comply fully and on-time.

Furthermore, under these requirements, claim beneficiaries must submit their Social Security numbers or Health Insurance Claim Numbers, Medicare Numbers, to the settlement company so they can be reported to CMS, generating serious privacy concerns. This legislation directs Medicare to establish an alternative method of identifying individuals, to mitigate concerns about identity theft and Medicare fraud.

Finally, there is currently no clear statute of limitations on MSP claims. This bill sets a 3-year statute of limitations for most claims.

The SMART Act is a common-sense bi-partisan bill that will make the MSP system work more efficiently, reduce unnecessary burdens and waste, and speed the repayment of amounts owed to the Medicare Trust Fund.

Mr. President, I am happy to rise today to speak about the three trade agreements that are working their way over to the Senate. At a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and we have over 14 million Americans out of work, it is past time for us to take up these three important agreements. These agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama are going to create jobs and put Americans back to work. That is why it is so important we move, and move on a bipartisan basis, to get them done.

With 95 percent of consumers living outside of our borders, we need to proactively help American workers, farmers, and service providers sell their products all around the world. The President himself has said that repeatedly. Just last month he came to Ohio and said he wants to be sure more products are stamped with the three proud words ``Made in America.'' I couldn't agree more.

One way to do that is to get these trade agreements done. Finally, we have the opportunity to vote on them. This will help us to gain market access for U.S. workers to about 100 million consumers.

Unfortunately, while these agreements have been sitting on the shelf for over 4 years, our workers, our farmers, and our service providers have lost market share. They have fallen behind because other countries have completed agreements, and their workers and their farmers, their service providers have gained market share that

we should have had. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, by waiting for 4 years to take up these agreements, American workers have lost over $12 billion in wages.

So I am glad the agreements are here. They should have been here sooner. Again, this, to me, should be a lesson that we learn as a Congress, a Senate. We need to have more agreements, and we need to have them negotiated constantly on behalf of our businesses and our workers.

While we have waited for the President to submit these agreements to Congress for a vote, other countries have moved forward and have gained footholds in other markets. The European Union and Korea, along with Canada and Colombia, have negotiated, completed, and put into force their own trade agreements they started to negotiate after we were done with ours. In other words, we finished our negotiations, they then began negotiations, they ratified their agreements, and they are now in effect taking market share away from us.

We have seen the U.S. market share be reduced in Colombia and in Korea because of these agreements. A good example would be our exports of agricultural products to Colombia. We have seen them drop from 70 percent of the market for corn, wheat, and soybeans to less than 30 percent of the market just since we completed the agreement with Colombia. Because, again, the President did not send these agreements forward for ratification, we have been on the sidelines while farmers in my State and around the country have lost out.

We are falling behind in Korea too. When we started discussing an agreement with Korea, the United States was Korea's biggest trading partner. Since then we have slid down the ladder, with China, Japan, and the Europe Union jumping ahead of us. According to the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, in just over a decade, our share of Korea's goods imports has fallen from 21 percent of their market to 9 percent of their market, while China's share of the Korean market has increased from 7 percent to 17 percent. We are now at 9 percent; China is now at 17 percent. This has happened, again, since we began negotiations or discussions about negotiations with Korea. By standing still we are still allowing China and our competitors to get a leg up in this crucial Asian market.

According to the President's own metrics, these three agreements together will create over 250,000 new jobs. Conversely, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if we fail to move forward on these agreements, we would lose 380,000 jobs--again, because we would lose market share that we already have to these other countries that are negotiating agreements while we sit on the sidelines.

The nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission says these three agreements will increase U.S. trade exports by nearly $13 billion each year.

When I was the U.S. Trade Representative, I had the privilege of launching the Korea agreement, actually in a room right next to the Chamber. This agreement is called KORUS. I did so with Korean Trade Minister Kim in February of 2006. At that time, many people said this agreement would be very difficult to negotiate. Some criticized us for launching it thinking this economy was too big, to complicated, that we would not be able to get a meaningful agreement. We took the chance because we saw the incredible potential for trade liberalization, and it would drive greater economic growth in the United States and U.S. job creation--and also because of the importance of the alliance with the Republic of Korea.

It turns out the skeptics were wrong, and we now have before us this week, in the Senate, to vote on the largest free-trade agreement, largest export agreement this Congress has looked at in almost two decades.

Korea is a vital market for U.S. exports already. It is America's seventh largest trading partner, and their economy is now growing by more than 6 percent per year.

KORUS eliminates tariffs on over 95 percent of U.S. exports of industrial and consumer goods to Korea within the first 5 years of the agreement. The agreement's intellectual property rights provisions contain stringent protections for American intellectual property-- extremely important to some of our service companies and other exporters. This gives American companies additional access to Korea's $850 billion services market.

America has a large services trade surplus, actually, in services right now, both globally and with Korea, and this agreement will allow American service companies that are the best in the world to expand and sell more products to a country of more than 48 million people.

KORUS is supported by the United Auto Workers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many other business and export-related groups. Let me read an excerpt, if I could, from the United Auto Workers' statement earlier this year about the Korean agreement. The UAW said the Korea agreement and related auto provisions ``will protect current American auto jobs . . . will grow American auto industry jobs . . . includes labor and environmental commitments, and . . . has important enforcement mechanisms.''

The KORUS agreement opens an important market for American farmers and ranchers as well. According to the International Trade Commission, KORUS will expand American agricultural exports by $1.9 billion to $3.8 billion per year. In my own State of Ohio, KORUS, along with Panama and Colombia, will increase Ohio's agricultural exports by nearly $55 million annually--just to Ohio.

KORUS will eventually phase out the 40-percent Korean tariff on U.S. beef and will immediately eliminate the 5-percent Korean tariff on soybeans, resulting in a $3 million annual increase in Ohio soybean exports. Soybeans are the biggest export crop in Ohio. In fact, 1 of every 2 acres of soybeans in Ohio is planted now for export.

KORUS also opens the door for American manufacturing jobs. In Ohio over 25 percent of manufacturing jobs now depend on exports. Over $31 billion of U.S. manufacturing goods were exported to Korea last year. In fact, Korea was our fastest growing export destination in the world, with a 37-percent increase over 2009. When American-manufactured goods are exported to Korea, they face an average tariff now of about 9 percent. With passage of this agreement this 9-percent tariff will fall to zero and in most cases immediately. However, due to this agreement we talked about earlier between the European Union and Korea going into force about 100 days ago, on July 1, EU exports to Korea are now on the rise because 90 percent of their goods can now enter Korea duty free. Again, it is important we move forward, and move forward quickly, to avoid losing more American share which is difficult for us to regain.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an editorial recently entitled, ``Korea Free Trade Deal Will Help U.S. and Ohio.''

The piece talked about the benefits of the Korean agreement, particularly for manufacturers and autoworkers. The editorial concluded by saying:

Trade can help drive recovery. This deal with a longtime

ally will help.

They are right.

Another important agreement is the U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement. Colombia is a growing economy in Central and South America, to which the United States exported over $121 million in goods last year. This agreement with Colombia is a clear victory for U.S. workers. Due to preference programs that are already in place, nearly 90 percent of the exports from Colombia to the United States have entered our market tariff free. So we largely have a one-way free-trade agreement with Colombia already. Due to these preference programs, this agreement will be a huge benefit to U.S. workers and U.S. businesses, because U.S. exports to Colombia have faced an average tariff of about 14 percent. So, historically, 90 percent of their goods come in duty free while ours face much higher tariffs when they enter Colombia. This isn't fair trade, and this agreement will fix that. It will assure that the one-way trade that advantages Colombian exports instead of American exports is balanced.

The agreement will lower the 14-percent average Colombian tariff to zero, allowing over 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial products exported to Colombia to become duty free immediately. The agreement also immediately eliminates duties on about 70 percent of U.S. farm exports, including

soybeans, wheat, barley, flour, and beef.

The Colombia agreement also establishes new transparency rules on nontariff barriers to trade; in other words, not a higher tariff, but other barriers in the country, so-called nontariff barriers, that keep our products out.

Further, it establishes new commitments on the environment and labor, an area on which Colombia is improving and proactively addressing.

The agreement also protects U.S. intellectual property with enhanced protection for copyrighted entertainment products, software, and U.S. trademarks.

Finally, we have an important agreement with Colombia's Latin American neighbor, Panama, another key ally to the United States. Panama is one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. Last year, $46 million worth of Ohio goods were exported to Colombia. Panama is a vital strategic partner for the United States, since nearly two- thirds of the Panama Canal's annual transits are either from or to U.S. ports.

Moreover, the ongoing $5 billion Panama Canal expansion project presents unique opportunities for American exporters such as Rockwell Automation, which employs nearly 3,000 Ohioans. At Rockwell's Twinsburg facility in northeast Ohio, they produce controllers and automation systems that open and close the doors of the Panama Canal's locks and divert the water. They are bidding on more work in Panama. However, they say they are currently working with one hand tied behind their back because their competitors have an advantage in Panama, because we don't have a trade agreement. So this Panama export agreement will help companies such as Rockwell by cutting tariffs, protecting their intellectual property, and giving them more investment certainty.

Upon entry into force, Panama will immediately eliminate its tariffs on over 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and on more than half of U.S. agricultural exports. Eighty-five percent of U.S. exporters to Panama are small and medium-sized companies. That is over 7,000 American small and medium-sized companies that export to Panama and will thus benefit from this agreement.

Let me speak about a couple of Ohio products that are exported to these markets. The Step2 Company, headquartered in Streetsboro, OH, is the largest American manufacturer of preschool and toddler toys. They employ over 800 Ohioans. They like to export to Korea and Panama, and they want to take advantage of these agreements. Lincoln Electric's 3,000 employees in Euclid and Mentor export welding products and equipment to Korea, Colombia, and Panama from northeast Ohio. These agreements don't just help Lincoln Electric export more, they also will help Lincoln's customers export more.

Another Ohio company is PRO TEC Coating, a U.S. Steel joint venture company located near Findlay. PRO TEC Coating employs about 250 Ohioans and creates steel that meets the most demanding specifications of U.S. automakers. The Korean agreement will open a big potential market for U.S. auto exports, which will help companies throughout the automotive supply chain to be able to get more business, and PRO TEC Coating is one.

Gorilla Glue, one of my favorite named companies in Cincinnati, OH, my hometown, has over 100 employees and they export their premium line of adhesives and tapes to Panama, Colombia, and Korea. They want this agreement because they will be able to expand their exports and create more jobs in Cincinnati.

While these agreements bring large economic benefits, those responsible for our national security also recognize the geopolitical benefits of building economic ties with key regional allies. In testimony earlier this year before the Senate Armed Services Committee, GEN Douglas Fraser, who is Commander of U.S. Southern Command, described the Colombian agreement as ``a very positive, beneficial aspect for our cooperation because of a growing capacity to support the capabilities of the armed forces and law enforcement.''

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly support these agreements, noting the importance of an effort that leverages all elements of national power to protect our interests overseas. Secretary Panetta confirmed the role these increased economic ties have on promoting regional security, with Colombia as a prime example of a key ally in a continent with ever changing political dynamics. When it comes to international economics and security, there is no question of the critical role Panama plays. With 20 percent of our trade to Asia passing through Panama, building on this historically strong relationship will signal our commitment to engaging with Central America.

When President Obama submitted these agreements to Congress last week, he said, ``The agreements I am submitting to Congress today will make it easier for American companies to sell their products in South Korea, Colombia, and Panama and provide a major boost to our exports. These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across our country. . . .''

While these agreements are late, the President is right. These are important job-creating and export-opening agreements. They have strong support from Members of both parties and, more importantly, they are supported by American workers and businesses.

Again, the lesson we should learn here is that we need to give the President the authority he has yet to ask for to negotiate further agreements. Because in these last 4 years while these agreements have been pending, while the President has not sent them during his administration--and prior to that when President Bush was blocked by the House from moving them forward--we have not been negotiating additional agreements. I am told there are over 100 bilateral trade agreements being negotiated right now. The United States is not a party to any of them. That is not acceptable because we are losing out. Our workers, our service providers, and our farmers are losing out and we will not have the sustained recovery we all hope for unless we engage more in these international markets.

I wish to commend so many in this body who have been patient, persistent, and even passionate in promoting these agreements over the years. When I was U.S. Trade Representative, I worked closely with then Chairman Grassley, with Chairman Baucus, with Senator Hatch, and others on the Finance Committee to promote these agreements. Those Senators are to be commended today. We will hear a lot from Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch, I am sure, about the importance of these agreements, but I want to underscore the key role they played even early on in ensuring that these agreements could be here before us today.

I commend the staff of the Finance Committee, who have worked tirelessly over the years to ensure that we could be here with this opportunity today. Other Senators played a key role--Senator Blunt, Senator Kerry, and others whom I should be naming but I am not--to make sure we have this opportunity to move our country forward by enacting these agreements.

Finally, I wish to thank the dedicated staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative who make these agreements possible. Again, I had the privilege to lead this nimble and effective agency, comprised of remarkable public servants who relish the agency's mission, which is to knock down barriers to U.S. products so we get a fair shake. They balanced this challenge with aggressively enforcing our international trade laws, which is also part of the mix. We need to both expand exports in open markets and ensure that trade is fair, and that we are enforcing both the international standards and U.S. laws with regard to trade. They do it very well. Without our negotiators' commitments to resolving some of these very complex and sometimes controversial economic issues, we would also not be here today. So I commend them. For all of those professionals with whom I have had the honor to serve and for those who are there now serving under Ambassador Ron Kirk, who has also been a strong promoter of these agreements, I thank you for your efforts.

Finally, I urge my colleagues who are on the fence--and some of them have talked to me--to take a strong look at the economic and geopolitical benefits of these agreements. We don't do much around here that is bipartisan these

days. Yet we have a country that is crying out for it. This is an example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats, realizing that for 14 million Americans out of work, we need to move our economy forward. This is a clear example of where we can indeed take steps that are bipartisan, where we have a consensus to be able to create jobs and opportunity in the United States of America.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, exports are absolutely critical to our economic growth in this country. In fact, there are nearly 10 million good-paying American jobs that are related to exports. The President, Members of Congress, and so on talk about that a lot. But I am disappointed we are not moving forward with an aggressive agenda to actually open new markets for our exports.

I am encouraged that the administration, finally, this week, sent forward three trade agreements that do just that--the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements. These open markets to U.S. workers and farmers, those who provide services, so it is going to be good for jobs in this country. The President's own metrics indicate these three agreements alone will create 250,000 new jobs. We need them badly.

I also want to congratulate Chairman Dave Camp and the House Ways and

Means Committee for reporting out all three of these agreements this afternoon. My understanding is, each agreement received a strong bipartisan vote, and I am hopeful those agreements will now come to the Senate for us to be able to move forward--again, opening these critical markets that will create over 200,000 jobs for Americans.

I will tell you, these three agreements were all negotiated and signed over 4 years ago. During that interim period, the United States has been absent from the kind of trade-opening negotiations we ought to be involved with. This President--for the first time since Franklin Delano Roosevelt--has not asked, as his predecessors did, for trade promotion authority to be able to negotiate new agreements. So we are losing market share.

Every day there are American workers who do not have the same opportunities to compete in foreign markets as those workers from other countries do because the United States is not actively engaged in opening markets. We need to do that.

Right now, we have no ongoing bilateral trade agreements. We have one multilateral agreement, which I support moving forward on--the Trans- Pacific Partnership--but, frankly, there are over 100 bilateral negotiations going on right now, and America is not a partner in any of them. We need to get engaged because it is so critical to growing our economy.

During the debate we have had over the last couple of weeks on trade adjustment assistance, where I was supportive of a version of trade adjustment assistance to get the trade agreements moving, we had a discussion about giving the President trade promotion authority. We were not able to get support from the administration for that. This is critical to move forward. It is because growing goods and services is absolutely critical to our economic health.

Over 95 percent of consumers in the world, of course, live outside of our borders. We want to access those consumers, we want to sell more to them. Export growth and a healthy trading system depends on these export-opening agreements, but it also depends on having a healthy international trading system where all the players play by the international rules. So the export-expanding agreements are good. We need to do more of that. We should be much more engaged, but we also have to insist that everybody plays by the same rules.

Today the Senate is debating legislation that has to do with one of those rules, and that is the issue of currency, and specifically the issue of China and their currency manipulation. China is a country, as you know, where we have a persistent and unprecedented trade deficit. It is also a very important trading partner for us. So it is critical we keep that strong trade relationship but do it on a basis that is fair for us and for China.

I consistently hear about this China currency issue when I am back in Ohio. I hear about it a lot from manufacturers and the workers at those plants who tell me it is just not fair that in the global marketplace Ohio products are not able to compete on a level playing field.

Just this year I have worked with a lot of Ohio companies that are facing various problems, including Ohio candle makers, steel manufacturers, diamond saw blade producers, rare earth magnet manufacturers, and others who are concerned about getting a fair shake in the global economy and want to be sure they are not competing with unfair Chinese competition.

Again, I believe in the benefits of trade. I know they work. I believe in reducing barriers, but I also believe opening export markets and vigorous enforcement of trade laws go hand in hand. They both should be something that the United States pursues.

China's undervalued currency does provide, in my view, an export subsidy, making Chinese exports to the United States less expensive in the global marketplace and making our exports to China relatively more expensive.

I have long had concerns about this. Actually, when I was before the Senate Finance Committee in my confirmation hearings to be U.S. Trade Representative years ago I stated that I believed China currency does affect trade, and I stated that China should revalue their currency. I still believe that. I believe this administration should label China a currency manipulator because I think it is clear there continues to be manipulation.

The legislation before us today is not the perfect answer, and I do hope the Senate will permit my colleague, Senator Hatch, to offer his amendment, which I think is a constructive amendment to improve parts of the legislation. But I do support the bill with the expectation that it is compliant with our international trade obligations and that it gives the administration the flexibility it needs to implement this bill in a smart and sensible way.

However, I would also say this bill has been described on this floor many times over the last couple days as I have listened to the debate as doing more than it does. We should not overstate it. It does not address some other issues that, frankly, I think would make a bigger difference in our important trade relationship with China.

One of these issues would be indigenous innovation, which I believe to be an unfair practice that China is currently practicing. Also, there is the issue of violations of intellectual property rights. It is not so much that the laws are not in place; it is that many times there is not adequate enforcement of the intellectual property laws that are in place. Of course, there is the issue of anticompetitive practices and subsidies that continue with regard to state-owned enterprises. I am also working with Senator Wyden and others--a bipartisan group of Senators--on combatting transshipment and customs duty evasion problems, which involve companies from various countries but include China.

So we have a growing list of complex issues facing our relationship with China. I believe they should all be addressed together. I hope the next round of diplomatic and commercial negotiations with China will bring about some of that discussion and bring about some solutions, not just more broken promises.

I understand the JCCT, called the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, between the United States and China will meet in November--next month--and that the next round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue will take place next year. I urge the administration to use these negotiations as leverage to get some of these real results that are so necessary.

We should also look at multilateral approaches, including the World Trade Organization, and certainly the International Monetary Fund. I will tell you, as someone who has sat across the table in negotiations with tough Chinese negotiators, endless dialog is not the answer. Sometimes that is what occurs. We are not just looking for more talk. I think it is important we get serious--both U.S. leaders and Chinese leaders--about some of our lingering trade problems that we have had through the years so we can have a healthy trade relationship based on mutual respect.

Each country is important to the other. We cannot overlook the fact that China continues to be a very vital U.S. export market, despite the issues I talked about. Right now, China is the third largest export market for Ohio goods, for instance. The State I represent sends over $2.2 billion a year in exports to China. With 25 percent of Ohio manufacturing jobs dependent upon exports, this is incredibly important to us.

One out of every three acres of land in Ohio is planted for export, so agricultural exports are also important. There is also an important issue with China that relates to investment both ways: our investment in China and Chinese investment here. Let me read to you from an editorial that was in the Cleveland Plain Dealer last Thursday. Its title is: ``Chinese investors are welcome here.''

If Greater Cleveland is going to prosper in the 21st

century, it has to build strong two-way connections with the

rest of the world. The region has to sell more of its

services and products abroad and welcome talent and capital

from overseas. That's the path to jobs and wealth.

The editorial goes on to talk about the collaboration between Chinese companies and investors looking to build relationships with Cleveland's world-renowned medical device industry.

Just last week, the mayor of Toledo, OH, Mike Bell, returned from a 12-day

trade mission to Asia in order to boost job creation in northwest Ohio. Since Mayor Bell's trip, plans have been announced for increased commercial ties between Chinese and Ohio job creators and companies, including launching a new international business center in downtown Toledo.

These are just a couple of examples in my State of the importance of this relationship and why it needs to be taken so seriously. This relationship is vital to the future not just of our two countries but, in my view, to the global economy. So we need to be sure, again, it is a healthy relationship. It needs to be fair. It needs to be on a basis where, again, there is a level playing field on both sides. So it is time for our trading partners to play by the rules so that, indeed, we can have a fair trading system.

Trade is key to growth. But, again, it is only one part of a broader problem that is holding back our economy today, holding back Ohio manufacturers from hiring and innovating. Another big issue that has come to the attention of this Senate time and time again is the incredible regulatory burden that is placed on Ohio's job creators. So in order to be successful in trade, we need to have more open markets. We talked about that: a level playing field. But, also, we need to be more competitive at home or else we are not going to be able to create the jobs in this century that we need to keep our economy moving forward.

At a time when we have over 9 percent unemployment, it is critical we be sure our economy is more competitive. This regulatory burden is one issue that I think all sides can agree ought to be addressed.

I am joined today by the junior Senator from Nevada, my friend and colleague, to offer a couple of amendments designed to give American employers some relief from the regulatory mandates that continue to hold back our economy and hinder job creation.

There is no official counting of this total regulatory burden on our economy, and estimates do vary. But one study that is often cited is from the Obama administration's own Small Business Administration where they report the regulatory costs exceed $1.75 trillion annually. That is, of course, even more than is collected by the IRS in income taxes every year. So it is a huge burden. We can talk about what the exact number is, but the fact is this is something that is forcing Ohio companies and other companies around our country to have higher costs of creating a job.

The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the annual cost of a narrow set of rules--these are just what are called the major rules that are reviewed by OMB over one 10-year period--registers at $43 billion to $55 billion per year.

I have been encouraged by what the current administration has recently been saying about regulations. I have been less encouraged about what they have done. The new regulatory costs on the private sector are real, and they are mounting.

Compared to historic trends, we have seen a sharp uptick over the last 2 years in these new so-called major or economically significant rules that have an economic impact of over $100 million on the economy. They also have an impact, of course, on consumer prices and American competitiveness.

George Washington University Regulatory Studies recently told us that this administration has been regulating at an average of 84 new major rules per year, which, by way of comparison, is about a 35-percent increase from the last administration and about a 50-percent increase from the Clinton administration.

These figures do include the independent agencies which must be included in the calculations. So there has been an uptick in regulations, and continues to be, again, despite much of the rhetoric to the contrary. One commonsense step we can take to address this issue is to improve and strengthen what is called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, UMRA.

I worked on this along with some of my colleagues who are now in the Senate back when I was in the House. It was a bipartisan effort that basically said Federal regulators ought to know the costs of what they are imposing. We also ought to know what the benefits are, and we ought to know if there are less costly alternatives.

The two amendments I am offering today are drawn from a bill that I introduced back in June called the Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act. It is an effort that now has over 20 cosponsors. Again, it seems to me it is a commonsense effort that should be bipartisan.

The first amendment would strengthen the analysis that is required in some very important ways. First, it requires agencies to specifically assess the potential effect of new regulations on job creation, which is not currently a requirement, and in this economy it must be. Also, to consider market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to regulation, again, something we need to look at.

It also broadens the scope of UMRA to require a cost-benefit analysis of rules that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million or more. It requires agencies to adopt the least costly and least burdensome alternative to achieve the policy goal that has been set out. So, currently, agencies have to consider that, but they do not have to follow the least costly alternative. We simply cannot afford that, again, because of the tough economic times we have.

The second amendment extends those same requirements to the independent agencies. This is incredibly important, and these are agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, agencies that are very important on the regulatory side and are currently exempt from these cost-benefit rules that affect all other agencies.

On this issue I was very pleased to see that President Obama issued an Executive order in July which was specifically related to independent agencies. That order and the accompanying Presidential memorandum called on independent agencies to participate in a look- back, but also, very importantly, called on independent agencies to evaluate the costs and benefits of new regulation just as, again, all executive agencies were already required to do.

It is a step in the right direction, but the problem is that the President's order is entirely nonbinding because a President cannot require independent agencies to do that. Congress can. We can do it by statute. And independent agencies do not answer to the President. So since this order was issued in July--by the way, we have not seen a rush by independent agencies to pledge to comply with these principles. Again, they are not required to, so this amendment, this second amendment, would effectively write the President's new request into law so it can be effective.

Independent agencies would be required under UMRA to evaluate regulatory costs, benefits, and less costly alternatives before issuing any rule that would impose a cost of $100 million on the private sector or on State, local, and tribal governments. The fact is, independent agencies are not doing this on their own. According to a 2011 OMB report, not one of the 17 major rules issued by independent agencies in 2010 included an assessment of both cost and benefit. Not one.

Closing this independent agency loophole is a reform we should be able to agree with on both sides of the aisle. Certainly, the President should agree with it since it is part of his Executive order and memorandum, and this is the right vehicle to do it.

This a jobs issue again and a commonsense approach. No major regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on American employers on State and local governments without a serious consideration of the costs, the benefits, and the availability of less burdensome alternatives. These amendments move us further to that goal.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me start by thanking the senior Senator from Ohio for his generosity in allowing me to speak now. I also commend Senator Hatch, who has been a leader in expanding exports and therefore creating jobs for many years, and again he is standing today talking about the importance of us moving forward on a progrowth trade agenda, including giving the President the ability to have trade promotion authority. That is what I wish to talk about today.

Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, introduced an amendment to the underlying legislation saying that, along with trade adjustment assistance, for the same 3 years there also be trade promotion authority given to this President, which all of his predecessors have had. That makes sense. The legislation in the amendment is actually identical to legislation I introduced my first week here in the Senate on a bipartisan basis with Senator Lieberman to provide the President with trade promotion authority. It is incredibly important.

I think it goes without saying that we live in an increasingly interconnected world where the movement of goods and services and people across borders is part of our economy. It is very much an economy where the United States is connected to our global competitors. We are moving forward around the globe on various arrangements, export agreements at a rapid pace. Yet I am sorry to say the United States is simply not a part of that because we do not have trade promotion authority.

These agreements that are being negotiated open markets for workers and farmers and service providers to be able to expand exports, again, of goods and services.

By the way, there are over 100 of those bilateral agreements being negotiated today. Guess how many the United States is party to. None, not a single one. The reason is that we don't have the ability through trade promotion authority to have the United States at the table negotiating to open these markets for our workers and our farmers and our service providers.

There is one agreement on which we are negotiating, a regional agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I support the continued negotiation there, but, frankly, it is not a bilateral agreement that is likely to reduce barriers significantly.

The United States is getting left behind. We lost trade promotion authority in 2007. It expired. At that time, President George W. Bush came to the Congress and asked for it to be renewed. Then a Democratically controlled Congress said: No, we don't want to give you the ability to negotiate these agreements that help, as Senator Hatch has said, expand jobs in this country.

President Obama's administration has not asked for the authority. In fact, as Senator Hatch has just indicated, they don't seem interested in having it, which is unbelievable to me--that you would not want the ability to negotiate with other countries to knock down barriers to help our workers, our farmers, and our service providers here in this country. But that is where we are right now.

Before the 2007 expiration of trade promotion authority, the United States was active and involved in agreements that knocked down barriers to our exports. There were three agreements negotiated now 3 and 4 years ago, and these were agreements with Panama and Colombia and Korea. Those are the three agreements that have been talked about a lot on this floor over the last day because the trade adjustment assistance we are talking about is related to those three agreements. We need to get them done. They have been languishing for too long. Obviously, the United States, not being able to negotiate anything in the interim period, has fallen behind, but at the least, we should move ahead and ratify these three agreements. The President's own metrics tell us these three agreements alone will generate 250,000 new jobs in this country. Look, with unemployment at over 9 percent, we need those jobs, and the jobs tend to be better paying jobs with better benefits.

What has happened in the interim while we have not moved forward with these agreements? Well, Korea has started a negotiation with the European Union since our agreement was finalized and completed that agreement and now made that agreement effective in July of this year. Exports from the European Union to Korea increased 36 percent in July alone. Our exports to Korea during that time period, by the way, increased less than 3 percent.

What is happening? We are losing market share. We are losing jobs while we sit back and allow these other countries to negotiate. Remember, over 100

agreements are being negotiated, and we are not parties to any of them.

The same thing is happening in Colombia. Since we negotiated the agreement with Colombia, Colombia started negotiating with other countries, including Argentina and Brazil, and guess what has happened. They have completed that agreement, it has gone into effect, and, again, our market share has diminished. We used to provide about 71 percent of the agricultural exports, including corn, wheat, and soybeans, to Colombia when we completed the agreement. Today, that market share is down to 26 percent. That means farmers in Ohio, Montana, Utah, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere are being disadvantaged by our trade policy.

We have to move forward with these agreements. Instead of having increased exports from Seoul, Bogota, Calgary, and Munich, they should be coming from Cincinnati and Cleveland and Columbus and Dayton. Interestingly, Korea and Colombia have now started negotiating an agreement with themselves. Again, we are not moving forward because we are not part of these agreements because we do not have trade promotion authority.

I think these three agreements that I hope the President finally sends to the U.S. Congress for ratification are examples of the kinds of agreements that we could have been negotiating over the past 3 or 4 years and that we should start negotiating tomorrow, by this Senate and the House, giving the President the trade promotion authority he needs to be able to have those negotiations and to open those markets for U.S. products.

The reality is that trade promotion authority is vital for any President to have. Why? Because if you don't have trade promotion authority, the other countries will not sit down at the table and bargain with you. It is a pretty simple concept. If you want to get the best deal from another country, you have to have trade promotion authority because here in America, after we negotiate an agreement at the executive branch level, it has to come to Congress, and other countries don't want to renegotiate an agreement with the U.S. Congress that would be full of amendments and changes. So in order for us to ensure we can get the best deal, we have to give the President trade promotion authority.

Every President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has asked for this authority and received it. It is unbelievable to me that this President does not want that. I believe he must want it--any President would--and he should ask for it, and we should provide it to him. This amendment does exactly that.

Congress has given TPA authority to Democrats and Republicans alike. It is not a partisan issue. So a Republican Congress has given it to a Democratic President and vice versa.

I stand as a Republican telling my colleagues that I would like to give it to President Obama. The underlying amendment we are talking about provides trade promotion for 3 years, so it would be for the remainder of the President's term and, if he is reelected, for the next couple of years or, if a Republican is elected, for that person. It should not be about party; it should be about our country.

The President has been talking in the last couple of weeks about the fact that he wants products stamped with three words: ``Made in America.'' I couldn't agree with him more. He is saying they should be exported all around the world? How is that going to happen? It is going to happen by opening these markets, by leveling the playing field for us as Americans so we can compete and win.

When we open these markets, we expand exports dramatically.

Think about this: Countries with which we currently have trade agreements which comprise less than 10 percent of the global GDP--think about it. We do not have an agreement with China or the European Union. It is about 10 percent or less of the global economy. Yet that is where we send about 41 percent of our exports.

These agreements are good for us, which is why the Colombia agreement, the Panama agreement, and the Korea agreement, in my view, will be able to pass this floor easily because the facts are there, if the President will just send them. By giving the President trade promotion authority, we could go on and, indeed, make good on his promise to have more products stamped with those three words, ``Made in America,'' sent all over the world.

It is a little bit ironic to me that the underlying bill we are talking about, the TAA, the trade adjustment assistance, is attached to the generalized system of preferences, GSP. It is not legislation I oppose, but it is legislation that opens the United States more to products from other countries. So here we are talking about opening up the United States more with the GSP bill, and yet we are not willing to put in place measures to open up other markets more for the United States of America through trade promotion authority. How does that make sense? But that is where we are.

To my colleagues, I will say, if we are not engaged in opening markets, we are falling behind. America needs to get back in the game again. We need to take a leadership role in global trade. That means giving this President and all future Presidents the ability to negotiate, just as all of their predecessors have had. I strongly urge my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to give to this President the same authority other Presidents have had of both parties. Our economy and the future for our children and our grandchildren depend on it.

Again, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his generosity, and I yield the floor.