vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to cleaning their vote? seeing none, on this vote the yeas are 56, the nays are 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, by twice denying this chamber the opportunity for a simple up-or-down vote on the president's nuclear deal with iran, our democratic colleagues have all but assured that a bad deal, an executive agreement that many of them have also

criticized, that it will go into effect without the american people having their say on this deal. and it's clear from public opinion polls and actually from counting noses here and in the house that a bipartisan majority of both houses opposes this bad deal. but by using procedural blockades, our democratic friends have prevented that up-or-down vote and the accountability that should go along with it. and for what? for what? to protect the president? as the majority leader has pointed out, the president's proud of this deal. this is about his legacy. he thinks this deal is perfect. so why are our friends on the other side of the aisle trying to protect the president from vetoing a piece of legislation that he is proud of?

well, during the debate, these very same colleagues who have filibustered this bill have stressed that although they support the president's deal, they remain deeply devoted supporters of the state of israel. and they say they remain deeply concerned about the plight of american citizens held hostage by an iranian regime. but just a moment ago, these very same colleagues, when they had an opportunity to prove it, well, let's just say their actions speak louder than words. the vote we just had should have been a straightforward vote. the legislation that the democrats have filibustered would have prohibited the president from providing any sanctions relief to the iranian regime until two things happened number one, the iranian regime acknowledges israel as a sovereign state.

and, number two, that the regime releases u.s. prisoners that it currently holds. but with only one exception, every senator on the democratic side of the aisle voted against both of those provisions. well, to be sure, they're consistent about one thing -- shielding the president who's desperate to protect his legacy from having to make tough decisions. i don't see the president particularly shy about taking -- making decisions, even when it's not authorized by the law, when it exceeds his authority under the constitution. this president has been the most reckless of any president that i've read about or seen in my lifetime when it comes to observing the limitations and constraints based on the law and the constitution. so to say that the blockade of these important bills is an

understatement, i know that many of us will continue to promote the bilateral relationship with israel, between the united states and israel over any sort of association with the nation's foremost -- excuse me, the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. and many of us, me included, will continue to call on the administration to bring our citizens home safely from iran. we're not giving up and we're not going to quit. but, madam president, this chamber does have a lot of important work ahead of us and for the remainder of my time, i'd like to discuss how we can come together to protect the most vulnerable among us and that is our unborn. earlier this summer, horrific videos were released depicting

planned parenthood executives discussing the harvesting of or begans from unborn -- of organs from unborn babies. the most recent video was released just a few days ago. in these videos, the blatant disregard for human life was underscored by a cavalier attitude on full display by planned parenthood executives. they flippantly and callously discuss the selling of body parts from babies who never had a chance for life. without a doubt, these videos show a dark, ugly side to our humanity. how people can become so desensitized that they don't recoil in shock at these videos and what they depict is beyond me. all i can -- all i can conclude is that people somehow have

ignored the right to life and the potential for life that these babies represent. under handy catch phrases like "choice." these videos rightly shock the conscience of many in our country, stirring even supporters of planned parenthood to publicly denounce them as disturbing. and, yes, they are. but they are more than that. as our nation unites behind this very basic understanding of our moral mandate to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we will have a unique opportunity to make an important stride to support an agenda that promotes life over death. next week the senate will consider a piece of legislation called the pain-capable unborn child protection act, legislation i've cosponsored along with, i believe, 45 cosponsors in the senate that

would prohibit nearly all abortions after a pregnancy has reached five months. nationwide. now, many states, including my state, have a ban on abortions once the baby becomes viable outside the womb. a friend of mine who's a neo natologist has told me privately what anybody can find on the internet or anywhere else which is roughly at about 20 weeks, a baby becomes viable outside of the womb. and so this legislation will prohibit abortions after that baby becomes viable, which is, under this legislation, five months. at five months, an unborn child's fingerprints and taste buds are developing, and it is at this stage when many doctors and experts believe that an unborn child can experience pain

banning nearly all abortions after five months, at the point unborn children can feel pain, should be an obvious moral imperative for all of us. now, i understand the issue of abortion divides our country and some believe that abortion should be available on demand at all points during a pregnancy. but we've taken an important step here in the congress just a few years ago in banning the barbaric practice of partial-birth, delivering a child alive and then aborting the child, literally killing a child once they are born alive. so regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully we can come together and draw a line, a very clear line, at viability of that baby. and i'd like to point out how vital this legislation is for those who, like me, believe we

ought to be advancing a culture of life in this country. very simply, the pain-exabl -- pain-capable unborn protection act would basically save the lives of thousands of children a year. and that's why it has garnered organizations like the national right to life and the susan b. anthony list. this chamber is long overdue at taking a hard look at the practices depicted by planned parenthood in these videos and examining our own conscience and our nation's policies that affect the unborn. i think it's important to point out that contrary to what some in our country would believe, the united states has been one of the most liberal and most permissive countries in the world with regard to abortion. as a matter of fact, the commonsense consensus of most democracies, most civilized countries around the world is that abortions after five months

are unequivocally wrong. and there are actually only seven -- seven countries in the world that allow abortions after five months, after viability of the fetus. sadly, the united states is one of those seven. and we shouldn't be proud of the fact that we are right there alongside of china, north korea and vietnam. virtually almost all other civilized countries in the world, even if they allow elective access to abortion, they draw an important line at viability at five months. america can and must do better than this. every life is a precious gift of god and we must protect those who cannot protect themselves.

madam president, at the same time, the senate will be considering this legislation, the pain-capable unborn child protection act, which, by the way, the house has already passed, the house will be voting on two additional pieces of legislation i believe perhaps as early as tomorrow. one that would provide that children born alive during the process of abortion be protected. this is the born-alive abortion survivors' protection act. and i believe that will pass the house of representatives and be available for the senate to take it up later. and it would -- and a defund planned parenthood bill, introduced by representative black, which would put a one-year moratorium on funding to planned parenthood while the investigation on their practices depicted on these videos is completed. right now there are four congressional investigations underway. the senate judiciary committee, the house energy and commerce committee, the house judiciary

committee, and the house oversight and government affairs reform committee. and those investigations, i can tell you, are meticulous, they will be thorough and we will be able to find out, number one, whether planned parenthood and their affiliates are complying with existing law, which prohibits profiteering from the sale of baby body parts. and whether the mothers who presumably grant consent actually know exactly what is happening to the their unborn baby. that is, that it's sold for research and other purposes. we have also just this year in the 114th congress, we passed other important pro-life legislation. the justice for victims of trafficking act, where we preserved the hyde amendment which prohibits and has

prohibited since 1976 the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, with some exceptions. and then the medicare access and chip reauthorization act of 2015. again, which reiterated the law of the land since 1976, the hyde amendment, named for henry hyde, former congressman from illinois, that applies these type of protections for funding of community health centers. so, madam president, these videos have perhaps reawakened the conscience of many of us and made some of us who weren't aware of these barbaric practices depicted in these videos, made it crystal clear to us that there's things that we need to do in response, and particularly for those who believe that every human life ought to be treated with dignity and respect. and there should be no hesitation from either side of the aisle to ensure we're doing

our very best to protect precious human life. so in addition to the ongoing investigations that i've mentioned, in addition to the legislation we've already passed to make sure that tax dollars aren't used to fund abortions, we must also respond with legislation like that that the house will pass either later this week or next week that i mentioned a moment ago. and legislation like the pain-capable unborn child protection act that would fundamentally protect the rights of unborn children. next week, this chamber has the opportunity to make this the law of the land. madam president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. and i'd ask unanimous consent

that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:# quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i want to speak today about a tragedy that hit american people, the american west last month. it's something that really didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have. i'm talking about what's been called the gold king mine spill. it happened on august 5. that's when the environmental protection agency spilled three million gallons of toxic wastewater into a tributary of the animas river in colorado. three million gallons. this is water that contained toxic substances like arsenic and lead. the agency was doing some work on an old mine when water under high pressure started rushing out. this disturbing incident raises

serious questions about how the e.p.a., the so-called environmental protection agency, how it does business. first of all, it raises significant questions about this agency's responsiveness. after the e.p.a. had this accident, apparently it never occurred to them to immediately call the towns downstream and to let anyone know that this toxic plume was headed their way. the animas river connects to the san juan river which connects to the colorado river and to lake powell. now these are some of the most beautiful natural resources in all of america. it is the source of water for communities all along the way. they provide recreation, water for irrigation for crops and for homes. this water that was polluted by the environmental protection agency flows from colorado to new mexico and into utah.

it flows through the land of the navajo nation and the southern indian tribe. these waterways are a sacred part of the culture for native americans who live near them. so why didn't the e.p.a. get on the phone? the navajo nation was not informed until a full day after the spill. they got the news not from the e.p.a., but from the state of new mexico. not from the agency that caused the disaster. at first e.p.a. didn't even want to admit how bad the spill really was. they said oh, it was a million gallons of wastewater. days later they admitted that they had actually spilled three times the amount that they said at first. four days after the spill, e.p.a. still hadn't reported to navajo leaders the presence of arsenic in the water. that water, arsenic, still hadn't reported it. it took five days for the agency to set up a unified command

center in durango, colorado. yesterday i chaired a hearing of the indian affairs committee to look at how this disaster affected tribes along the route. the agency's explanation was disappointing. very disappointing. the disaster happened over six weeks ago. the e.p.a. is still not giving out detailed answers about what went wrong. this tragedy also raises questions about the e.p.a.'s basic competence. according to a preliminary review by the agency, the e.p.a. failed to take basic precautions. failed to take basic precautions. the agency never even checked how high the water pressure was in the mine, but the report did say that e.p.a. knew about this risk, the risk of a blowout 14

months before it happened. never bothered to figure out what the worst-case scenario would be and what they would do if water actually started rushing out. but that's what happened, and they knew it could. the people who live along these rivers are frustrated by this agency's incompetence. they are also frightened. people are afraid of what the long-term health effects might be for them and for their children. farmers and ranchers are being devastated by the disaster. they're uncertain about whether the agency will be compensating them for their losses, losses that result of the e.p.a.'s own incompetence. at our hearing yesterday, we heard from gilbert harrison. he's a marine corps veteran, and he has a 20-acre farm on the navajo reservation. he grows corn. he grows corn, alfalfa, watermelons and other crops. he estimates that he's going to lose 40% to 50% of some of his

crops because he couldn't use the water to irrigate. the farmer told our committee yesterday -- quote -- "this spill caused by the u.s. e.p.a. created a lot of chaos, confrontation, confusion and losses among the farming community." this was a manmade disaster, and the obama administration's e.p.a. inflicted it upon americans in these communities. now, i've spoken with tribal leaders who say the e.p.a. has mishandled the spill, and their mishandling of the spill -- the e.p.a.'s mishandling of the spill -- has seriously damaged their trust -- the tribe's trust -- of this agency. and i don't blame them. finally, the e.p.a.'s failure in this incident raises lots of questions about the agency's priorities. after all, the obama environmental protection agency has expanded its authority.

it seized control over one area after another. and look at its destructive new rules on waters of the united states. this agency has declared that only washington can be trusted to protect america's rivers and streams. that's what the environmental protection agency says. only they can be trusted to protect america's rivers and streams. how then do they justify grabbing all of this new power when they can't even protect rivers from themselves? they caused this problem. look at this photo. does this look like the work of a bureaucracy that should be in charge of protecting america's precious waterways? i mean, just look at that. before. after. beautiful blue water running through. this, sludge, dirty, polluted,

toxic. the e.p.a. caused this. does this look like the work of a bureaucracy that should be in charge of protecting our national precious water? the obama administration has focused on its radical climate change agenda and has neglected its most basic responsibilities. this photo should not give anyone confidence that this administration, the obama administration, is up to the job. they're not. do we really think that washington should have more control over rivers like this when they cause something like this? does anybody in america believe that? washington did this. the e.p.a. did this. washington poisoned this river this way. the environmental protection agency, the so-called environmental protection agency must be held accountable.

when any private company is accused of violating the clean water act, the e.p.a. aggressively pursues civil fines against that company and any of the individuals involved as well. even criminal prosecution occurs if this were a three-million gallon toxic spill caused by private citizens, the e.p.a. would act aggressively against those people. the e.p.a. would never accept the kind of feeble, half-apologies and explanations that we've heard so far from this administration and from the director of the e.p.a. who testified yesterday. there is clearly a double standard between the way the e.p.a. treats itself and the way it treats everyone else. the e.p.a. failed, failed to do

the proper planning before it caused this disaster. i believe it's also failed to do proper work before writing regulations, like its waters of the united states rule and its so-called clean power plan. with this spill, the agency's careless approach has done terrible damage to americans living along the animas river and other waterways. its reckless and irresponsible regulations will have a devastating effect on the jobs and the lives of millions of americans all across the country. at our hearing yesterday, the e.p.a. administrator continued to try to down play the impact of its actions. downplay the impact of its actions. the agency needs to step back and rethink its priorities. this disaster happened because the e.p.a. is inept at its job.

there should be no more trying to deflect attention from the failure of the e.p.a. no more trying to grab additional power that it can use to do more damage. the environmental protection agency has been out of control for far too long. it's time for congress and president obama to hold the e.p.a. accountable for its failures and it's time to rein in this runaway bureaucracy before it does more damage to our communities, to our economy, and to our country. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. i rise today to discuss our strategy against isil. yesterday at our armed services committee, we held a hearing on this topic, and instead of reassuring me that our mission was on the right path, the testimony provided further evidence that the administration must change their approach.

i agree with the president's stated goal of degrading and destroying isil, but the steps we have taken thus far will not achieve isil's defeat. indeed, the root of the problem seems to be that our strategy does not connect with events on the ground. there's no better example of this than our plan to train and equip the so-called moderate syrian troops. at the end of last year, congress approved the president's request of $500 million for the purpose of building a force of moderate syrian fighters. tests find in september of last year. then secretary of defense hagel laid out the administration's plan to build a force of about 5,000 fighters in one year. general dempsey, the chairman of

the joint chiefs of staff, added his assessment that about 12,000 fighters would need to be trained for the force to have an effect on the battlefield. initial results were expected within eight to 12 months. at that time, many members, including myself, questioned whether these goals were attai attainable and whether this assumption that we could fight a war without taking on significant risk because local partners would provide ground forces, we questioned whether that was even realistic. let's consider where we are today. -- about ten months later. according to public reports, the program produced about 60 fighters, and upon their return to syria, they were attacked by

al qaeda-affiliated forces. general austin testified yesterday before our committee, madam president. in response to my questioning, he said that only four or five of those fighters remain. again, we expected 5,000, and four or five remain. i wish that i could say the complete failure of this strategy comes at a surprise. unfortunately, i cannot. while isil has lost some territory in northeastern syria, it has expanded its control in the western half of that count country. iraq is a similar story. recruits for the united states training programs remain below expectations, with u.s. forces

training just over half the number of iraqis expected, and the progress on the battlefield, it is uneven. it's plain to see why general dempsey, our most senior uniformed military officer, has recently characterized the fight as "tactically stalemated." the question is, what are we going to do? and how will our approach change? what can we do to break that stalemate? what can we do to begin rolling back this tremendous threat? i attended yesterday's hearing with those questions in mind, and i was extremely disappointed to hear that no real change was in order. to be fair, press reports indicate that changes are being

considered, such as deploying graduates of our training program in groups larger than 50 or in safer areas of the country. but even if such minor adjustments are made, they will not alter the basic fact that the idea of a new syrian force, it's a complete fantasy under our current approach. perhaps in recognition of this, another report has surfaced that suggests the administration is no lorp longer attempting to bua moderate ground force in syria. instead, they will simply train syrians to direct united states airstrikes and then embed them with existing rebel brigades. madam president, if our experience thus far indicates that very few moderate groups

remain on the battlefield, we'll either be providing air support to a contingent too small to make a difference or we'll be providing it to groups that are too extreme to currently warrant any support us from. -- any support from us. again, i support the president's goal to destroy isil, but i don't see how anyone can believe that this program is going to accomplish it. instead of providing a new direction, the message that this administration is sending is that they will stay the course. i admit, i share the complete confusion expressed by some of my colleagues yesterday when we learned of this situation. the white house acknowledges

that training programs in syria and iraq, the linchpins of our strategy, have vastly underperformed. they express more outrage at isil's barbarity as well as grave concern for the plight of the 4 million refugees that have fled that country and sorrow for the 250,000 that have lost their lives. our military characterizes the conflict as a stalemate, but apparently the administration feels that no chapping is necessary -- that no change is necessary. we're told the long-term trajectory is favorable and isil's future, as general dempsey put it, is increasingly dim. madam president, i appreciate the fact that patience is

required when it comes to military operations, but, at the same time, patience doesn't fill the fundamental gaps in this administration's strategy. and the idea that we can wait isil out seems to overlook the death, destruction, and collateral damage that its continued presence inflicts on the neighboring countries or to at least suggest that it's tolerable. i visited the region several times. our allies there cannot sustain the strain of this conflict for yearyears on end. i have visited a syrian refugee camp in turkey. those people cannot wait there forever. lest we forget, colleagues, this conflict has been raging for

four years. sadly, the flood of refugees reaching europe, it was entirely predictable. and how long before a divided iraq becomes irreparable? as long as isil exists and continues to exercise initiative on the battlefield, it will draw recruits, expand its global network, and inspire those lone-wolf attacks. it's ability to execute attacks against europe and the united states will improve, as more foreign fighters pass through its ranks and then they return to their home countries. these are the very reasons that congress supported taking military action against isil in the first place. but i certainly did not support the deployment of forces to

establish a stalemate. when our soldiers are put in harm's way, we shouldn't be content to just patiently leave them there with no strategy to achieve our goals. as my colleague, senator mccain, who has been a tireless advocate on this issue, has pointed out, there are a variety of options available to the president, between the current approach and deploying large amounts of troops on the ground. with only a stalemate to show for the thousands of soldiers that we've deployed, the 5,000 airstrikes that we've conducted, and the past year we've spent training syrians and iraqis, i think that these options deserve reconsideration. the president has stated that all wars must end and that our country must move off a

permanent war footing. i believe that the best way to do so is by crafting a strategy that plans for victory. before i yield the floor, madam president, i want to note my appreciation of secretary carter and general austin for their frank testimony before the senate armed services committee. both men have come before our panel, and they have provided honest assessments and also specific figures about the results of the syria training program, for which they have received significant media scrutiny. the point of a public hearing is to provide the american people and their representatives in congress with the information they need to know in order that we can make informed policy decisions.

i sincerely hope that more witnesses follow their example and justly uphold that valuable tradition of congressional oversight by not shoul should sy from discussing these very difficult topics. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes as if in morning business and to share the time

with the senator from ohio, senator portman. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i'm joined by rob portman on the floor today, both of us longtime friends now of the late congressman, joe coax, of cleveland, a couple of weeks ago, we both would like to speak about him and senator portman would like to speak about his friendship and alliances and work with him. he grew up in a federal housing project in cleveland, his father worked in a laundromat, his father passed away when he was 3. leaving his mother with two young sons to raise. a former crop sharer, he left

his sons to achieve an education he served in the army for world war ii. probably segregated army, but he served and went to college at case western, on the g.i. bill. from public investment, and accomplishments, he showed how the g.i. bill made a difference in people's lives, something he passionately believed in, the communities, the federal government and what we could do as a country. made great strives, paving the way for people like congressman stokes to become a national leader. what this gave lew stokes he gave back many times. many places and many fields,

particularly he would see the army when he was stationed in the deep south during days of segregation. he was appalled by the inequality, even those who wore the uniform of our country. he said once i remember being moved to georgia, they stopped the train to, the next dining room was germany p.o.w.'s. and the black soldiers from the german p.o.w.o.'s, it was the first time it hit me. he he and his brother carl, had did civil rights cases including the landmark supreme court decision against ohio. again and again he fought for

the powerless against the powerful, the same things he did as congressman. 1965, louis and carl stokes challenged the congressional map. during that time his brother carl was electedded mayor, and it became the largest city in america with a black mayor. the new map from the lawsuit i mentioned was ohio's first african-american majority district, and lou won that and represented the district in the house. 1993 became the first house in history to serve in it. he didn't serve it for glory for himself, but to expand opportunities not just for his own district in cleveland, so

important to those of us who live in cleveland and who represent ohio, but used his position all over the country. he was immediately earned more and more beloved in the black communities of every city in community from mansfield to cincinnati to dayton to toledo and smaller cities. he gave those a voice in washington. he secured help for jobs programs, and education. for colleges basically searching people of color. he was great for unions, he knew the trade union gave opportunity for black americans. he stood up for the rights of workers everywhere. and he helped to form the black caucus.

congressman stokes' accomplishments were many. with this resolution senator portman and i are introducing we should strive to honor and continue his -- here's how. i'll close with this. sunday night before the 2008 elections, senator obama, a colleague of mine at the time in the senate, was campaigning in cleveland for president. he was perhaps the nation's largest swing state, the presiding officer thinks it's his state but we know it was our state. a rally for obama had 30,000 to 50,000 people. and almost inevitably, at the end of the campaigns, he was about an hour late. springsteen took the stage,

senator obama before senator obama arrived, i had the honor and became one of my greatest memories of ever of public service, i stood behind the scene and saw a conversation with congressman stokes, retired at that point, reverend otis moss who delivered his eulogy a couple of days ago and mrs. moss. and i just listened to them for 45 minutes. talk about what it meant to them they were this close to having an african-american president. they, frankly, didn't think it would happen in their lifetimes. they weren't even sure the polls it was going to happen. and with the history and the awe and depth of feeling that senator obama and reminiscing,

talking about the future, to my wife connie and i it was something i'll never forget. and citizen stokes, former congressman stokes, he got the economy going band and forth. the voting rights, troubled by the decision supreme court decisions and the bipartisan way to build this economy, pass voting rights and things he had spent his life to do, first as a lawyer, then as a representative and then as a citizen, to speak out on these issues that matter to all of us. we should honor his life and legacy on his work on equal

equality. we all had him, and form portman did, too. we should stand on the floor and speak for a few moments about our friend, the late congressman stokes. mr. portman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i thank my colleague from ohio for his remarks and for joining me today on the talk about our former colleague and friend, congressman lou stokes. he was an amazing guy. a true ohio success story, his dedication to public service whether in office or not. my friend, senator brown has done a nice job talking about his humble beginnings and lou stokes grew up without having a dad around, in a poor household but with a lot of pride. his mom pushed him to get his

education. and to be the best he could. as clearly she did with her other son, carl. after growing up in cleveland he spent a few years in the army which had a big impression on him. he then went to cleveland case western law, and he authored three cases before the ohio supreme court, before getting into politics. senator brown talked about his brother carl and he was the african-american mayor of the largest city in america. and louis stokes told me he saw that and that's what inspired him to think maybe he should get involved in public service in that way as well. so he ran for office, he got elected to the house of representatives, he was the first african-american representative from ohio. that was 1968.

1993 became the first to sit on the judiciary committee. a lot of firsts. and after 30 years game an influential member, senator brown and i served with him there, serving his district faithfully but also larger districts issues beyond his district. education, justice issues. i was proud to cosponsor a number of bills with him, one in particular the national railroad freedom force, which was my hometown, not his hometown but something he was critical to get that going, resides in the ohio. and to connect all the railroad sites around opportunity. many of which were in disrepair and in danger of being lost and the act which continues today to get the park service in

protecting these sites. it was also a pleasure to work with him and he was a loyal and trusted legislator partner. worked after leaching the government before running for the senate so we got to know each other better about that. a great career as senator brown has said. what i admired about him most was his interest and ability in getting to a result. he was not about giving fancy speeches or rhetoric. he was about coming up with solutions for the people he represented in cleveland. i think in his heart, well beyond cleveland, and that's why he was so effective. he didn't get sidetracked by the partisanship, the political attacks. he kept focus and therefore he made a big difference and had a meaningful impact on lives