large matters together, and you provided great leadership and counsel to me. .. the department executed it but i began to get a glimmer of what i had gotten myself into when these people started arriving in phoenix where i was still the governor with dali's full of

binders of things i needed to absorb and four acronyms than you could possibly name. they finally gave me a glossary of the acronyms and it was 94 pages. three years after the fact i know virtually every acronym on that list which is a little scary. it has been and continues to be process of building and maturing and adapting. the department still coming together as one dhs with items that are common culture and common expectation, common business practices among different agencies, adaptation, deciding what initiatives we need to pursue, looking at them from a variety of angles,

question can involve issues that implicated the coast guard and customs and fema and the office of health affairs and the technology directorate, the nppd directory, all of these to deal with new emerging threats and continuing to identify what the threats are out there that are real. there is lot of speculative threats and we'll do some of the what if but there is enough intelligence that crosses our desk on a daily basis that teaches us really what we are -- adversaries may be are thinking about. technologies or other capacities they really do have and what do we need to do to and large or maximize our ability to prevent

something from occurring and our ability to respond and recover as quickly as possible. those things are happening simultaneously. lastly -- the department of homeland security has been the largest reorganization of the federal government since the creation of the department of defense. it has been immense. it is not until you are in it that you realize how our immense it actually is. as that reorganization has occurred it impacts other participants in the so-called interagency because for example the department of homeland security has a huge international footprint and we are negotiating international agreements all the time and we have people stationed in 75 countries around the world

today. that culture which is relatively post 9/11 where ministers of the interior, homeland security secretary have their own international pathways to communicate and relationships. that is a new and evolving set of international relationships that i think will only grow more robust as time goes on. conversely now we have a situation where as the department of homeland security matures and there is greater realization about its role and responsibility and statutory mandate that means adjustments in other members of the federal family as well. it could be dod or the state department or the justice department or members of the intel community, but all of those departments are having to make changes in a good way but in of good way that really works

with dhs to leverage one with the other appropriately. that is still in process of adaptation that is underway. >> quick observation to the secretary's credit and the transition because i remember calling secretary napolitano the night before she announced everybody in europe and i am going to take the liberty of speaking to my successor, secretary chertoff. there are only to people in washington that know what you are getting into. the range of challenges, the complexity. only two people know it all and may be the deputies as well. you need to feel comfortable -- to the secretary's credit you get calls that this is what we're doing to effect change and calls to say what do you think about it and the transition continues and is far beyond what most people would normally associate for going from one

administration to the next. >> if i could extend the discussion further, with enough of the top is take the budget discussion out of this. we had this discussion backstage for a number of years in washington across the board cuts, in the words of secretary robert gates, perpetuate mediocrity. there has to be a better way to have this discussion about risk being assumed and trade offs that have to be taken. in the context of the evolve and homeland security enterprise and the point you have made about the evolution of the department you could add what you think evolving and the threat environment and one of the things we need to focus on as well as the constrained budget environment to make tough choices. those ought to be the choices that are made based on the best understanding of threats and vulnerability and risks and having the ability to have that conversation separate from a

mandatory budget level is really important and we will start with you on this. >> thank you. one of the things that has changed is as the department was building it was getting big budget increases every year as needs became more manifest. if you actually trace the corporation process involving the department you get a 6% increase the year. in some years it was 7% over the prior year and we are not in that environment now. we are in the environment of something equating to a freeze or percentage point or two below that or some scenarios five percentage points below that. it has put a premium on evaluating every activity we do and how do we do it more cheaply

and effectively? it has made getting control over our acquisitions process and i wanted to point that out because some of you're interested in this. but really making sure we are not sending good money after bad. when we try something for long enough time you get a sense that we got something or we don't but making hard discussions when to cut expenditures are to conserve resources for other activities. it means that we really need to look at what is the right mix of manpower to technology and there are some things technologically speaking that will be forced multipliers for our manpower even though that may be down the road so it continues to make

sense to invest. and again, this whole business of the enterprise. sharing with state and local and private sector and nonprofit. part of that is because homeland security is not really described in an organizational box. involves a lot of things but part of it is because you need to be able to share the division of responsibility. share the work so that everybody isn't doing all the same thing all the time but you are actually doing -- sometimes it is unintentional as well as intentional but what you are trying to name for is a mix so everyone's budget is used for effectiveness. it is a very complicated process because when you go through your own departments and budget process it doesn't necessarily take into account impacts of

others who may be in the enterprise. how we grow and acknowledge that complication is still ahead of us. >> i think that is very true. i completely agree with you, thad, that the idea of across-the-board cuts is a way of doing everything in a half baked fashion. what you decide you ought to do you should do well. what you decide is not worth doing well you should do at all. are saw this in homeland security during my tenure. in a period of rising budgets it was a real tendency for everybody to feel the federal government -- why aren't you covering that or doing that? some things to degree and i want to be careful saying to a degree of period of but austerity can be a good thing from the standpoint of the department because it allows you to say no.

when i was there if you said we don't think we should do that that is a matter of protecting the country. now more powerful response is weekend afford to do it. we need to eliminate budget and make choices. to me a healthy environment, what is required is to think about not just the core missions of the department but where are the best locations for various levels of responsibilities? there are a host of things that can be done on a security standpoint quite well at the state and local level. those ought to be done at the state and local levels and perhaps ought not to be done by federal agents or with federal money. i understand they have a budget issue and issues where we need more help from washington. what i would suggest to people with their hands on the fiscal

pipeline is it ought not to be about who screens the loudest. it ought to be about something all of us are committed to which is to look at the risks, figure out what is the right level of investment to manager, not eliminate but manage the risk and most important who is best situated to execute on that risk mitigation. sometimes it is the private sector and sometimes it gives you information but we won't give you money. there can be useful exercise provided doesn't get overwhelmed by the tendency of a lot of loud voices to overwhelm the decisionmaking process. >> you have been in the marketplace of ideas, secretary ridge. you also work with state and local governments. having been a governor can you give us a point counterpoint how to counsel state and local

authorities? >> we all agree one of the challenges in homeland security is to get people on the hill to know homeland security is about risk-management. not risk elimination. you can't eliminate all risk. you have to prioritize the risk internally and under the austerity measure we have now prioritize. and determine not only what the risks are but whose best situated. when i was governor i used to walk into the budget secretary's office that you would see a sign before you talked to him, it says nothing stimulates the imagination like a budget cut. think about that. you have the dollars right now. i think you beef up in terms of muscular man power and have personnel so as you are thinking about these difficult times the burden will be on the department

and they are getting pushed back from the hill. this is where we believe we need the forces and there will be a battle once they made those difficult decisions on a case by case basis to preserve funding in those areas. i think secretary chertoff's notion of identifying who is equipped to deal with certain elements of the risk needs to evolve back down to the state and local. that has always been a certain bias i have as governor. you can secure the country from inside the beltway. you have to start trusting the private sector. you need to do an assignment and reassigned the responsibility. with you spend the money remains to be seen. you also need in these budget times to enable legislation and cut costs.

you need commercial off-the-shelf technology. no more experimental technology. a lot of steps could be embedded if you believe in risk-management. with the bright idea we can eliminate risks, show me where it is done some place else. manage the risk here. and the technology -- some additional revenue. if you are focusing you need to be on technology and it will upset some contractors in the room but you might have to take a hair cut. professional services dealing with governments with the past couple years has reduced a little bit. you may have to take a haircut. i thought i would throw that out there. >> thank you very much. [laughter]] this is really getting interesting. maybe the next evolution of this conversation might be to pick

out a number of technologies related to problems we know exist out there and talk about how you get to a solution. sometimes it will be a policy solution with state and local government and we have to translate these and requirements to put out solicitation and require things that once we decide they are important and when we think about changes in technology going on with fertilization and cloud computing our ability to deal with large data sets and analytics associated with that maybe you can opine the different problems that might be successful to the private sector solution and how we might want to move forward on that. i will start in the middle. >> we could talk about this in a lot of contexts. i spent a lot of time on the issue of cybersecurity. there's a challenge in cybersecurities that most of the

assets are in private hands. we are dealing with an area where there is a lot of sensitivity talking about how people communicate with each other. there are countries in the world where the government sits on the internet and controls everything. it is a different kind of security but it suggests to me the model of having the government set on the internet and watch everything goes back and forth has intervened to prevent bad things from happening is not going to receive a hospitable reception in the united states. the government does have a credible set of capabilities. this is a great example where the private sector has a place to go. the ability to create trusted agencies or entities in the private sector that have the capability of working with enterprises on security, how to

work with the government or able to handle information to interface with the government in terms of sensitive information but actually wind up executing with a private set of hands on the controls and this creates the dispersion of power that reduces the risk of government is going to abuse its position on the internet and because you have people who live in that world that have opportunity to see what is going on in a way that makes the more capable of managing networks security than accompanying it in another business and only sees one comes into its own in domain. that is one example of a place where i think the private sector has a lot of capability. not necessarily to self-governing but to sell to other parts of the private sector and produce that result. >> when you think about cyber

and that hole evolving area it is probably the most rapidly evolving area. it is an area where there are no international rules. there is no legal framework on which to hang things, things by their nature cross national boundaries overtime. we know the internet is an accelerant of certain types of recruitment activities. there is good and bad to can there are attacks on the internet and we know there is a lot of economic aspects of the country that are being stolen by the internet. there is a lot of work that needs to happen in this arena. we also know that 85% of the nation's critical infrastructure

is in private sector's hands and dependent on a cybernetwork of some sort or another. one of the things that will happen in congress now is they are going to be taking up legislation to di fine some rules and responsibilities and statutory jurisdiction. primarily the division of the department of defense and the department of homeland security. the basic issue that i think the finds the different major bills that are pending is to what degree the private-sector will be mandated to do certain things. to what degree they will be, quote, incentivized to do certain things or to what degree we assume the market will somehow take care of an issue or

a problem. that issue as encapsulated on the debate on cyberlegislation will go to the security arena to what degree we think the private sector has incorporated security concepts as part of their core competency that they will take on voluntarily or to what degree because they do control critical infrastructure that everyone is dependent on is their governmental interest that needs to be taken more strongly into account. this is all underway right now. >> when i think of cybersecurity i think of attribution and accountability. technology is pretty good. we are getting fairly able to contribute an attack from a particular source but i am very skeptical that the global community will have accountability. you do this -- may be that

happen in time but we need to do everything possible to make sure they don't gain access and we don't worry about accountability. as secretary chertoff pointed out if there is an area within which you absolutely need the public/private sector partnership this is it. to the point where i think that the congress and the executive branch should look at their regulations that really inhibit the ability of the private sector to come in and sit and work closely with the immensely talented people we have in the government sector but they still don't have the breadth and depth in my judgment that is available for one of the digital community in the united states.

both secretaries have hit on something. it may be the private -- if the electric grid goes down the federal government and financial institutions -- so is there. if there is one spot where the public/private sector relationship for national security reasons is absolutely imperative, this is it. >> i had the opportunity to have a conversation with the chief technical officer and science advisor to the president. he postulated there was an opportunity to have a public conversation with the folks that have to grapple with these problems inside government. he long for a metaphorical switzerland where you could go and sit down and say what are the rules that are inhibiting us? what do we want to do? what does it do in terms of

regulatory requirements on the private sector? he long for a way to have a set of principles come out of that to govern the way forward. let me ask you all and get to the hard part. there's a consensus on this issue what needs to be done. the real issue is congress was reform pursuant to 9/11 recommendations, the tyranny of the president we talked about, how the move this thing forward? >> first of all i think we begin with the president's review of cybersecurity from how to organize the government because the government itself has overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. when you boil down the dod will have responsibility and dhs will

have responsibility in the dot.gov responsibility and primary intersection with the private sector. doj and other organizations have equities but the basic division is there. the question is who gets to use the nsa? the greatest resource the country has. will we have two? one 4 civilian and one for military? have to somehow figure out of both can utilize that resource. secretary gates and i were able to negotiate an m o u that identified how a civilian agency can tap into and use the nsa but that is an evolving relationship. we see those things. and to thad's question, how do you bring the private sector to

bear? quite frankly i don't see the lack of a metaphorical switzerland. i think the key question is who gets to come. at some point you say here is the metaphorical switzerland and everyone says i should be there. what we need to do is not only work with critical infrastructure players but be thinking about what is moving forward. what is that we need as a end product? do we need a regime for example for financial institutions, must tell the department when they had an intrusion, something we do right now. do we have a regime where we can create some intellect will lock boxes where information can be deposited so that it can be

exchanged in some fashion? how do we do that? what things are so critical that government mandates are the most appropriate way to assure public safety? those questions are not answered. these are things that are all going to be debated in the context of legislation but even after words. >> this is a challenging area because there are a whole set of problems. they present themselves in different ways and have different solutions. we are past the point where people believe there's one magic bullet to solve this issue. sometimes we have cyberfraud which is pretty much the same as what we have seen in the past against people for financial

purposes where there are technical issues and it is not terribly different from reform. there is theft of intellectual property on a massive scale. some for criminal purposes and some by nation states or competitors. there is concern about a tax. they are concerned about malware that could disrupt or destroy critical systems including control systems. these different problems. the consequences are different. they are all bad but some are worse than others. some implicated trusts that are largely private. some implicate consequences with huge public effect. some can be dealt with from a market standpoint. these people want to protect their own assets and some because of the collateral consequences are areas of market failure because a company will not invest more the value of the

assets it is protecting and in many cases the asset will have an aspect is external to the enterprise. so you look at this stuff and figure out how do you treat the different kinds of threats? what do you view as private-sector or principally public? and what is the role of the government versus -- dealing with these issues? that requires hard choices. when do we regard an attack as an act of war? when do we regarded as something that is not an act of war? once you put your document which is a laborious and challenging and delectable process and then it is possible to look at the total set of tools we have. incentive and information sharing, mandates and regulations and direct

government action and we can overlay those on what the doctor in is and decide how to carry out the mission of dealing with that particular challenge. the one thing i would say is it is my experience here in how long have been in and out of government, i can trash full years. the biggest problem is the lawyers because i find the lawyers coming to a problem set with the concept that here is what the authorities are and you have to figure out how to make this work with and that constant. ..

>> rather than try to fit the doctrine in the strategy into a set of legal rules 245 were built in the 20th century before a robust internet. that's my one big suggestion about how we go about the process. >> what would you add, sir? >> a couple things. one, it's a skepticism that congress moves as fast as the technology. [laughter] >> well founded. >> i don't know why, but i just have a feeling. [laughter] that's why it's important for collaboration between the private sector and government itself. secondly, i suspect, given the factñi

>> you have to assess those capabilities internally so it's incumbent therefore if you are skeptical congress moves with the availability and foresight with the technology. it's a fact, they move slow. technology's changing every day. accept the notion there's risk and probably some digital capabilities within the government that will probably never see the light of day unless they go to 3.0 and then go to 2.0.

finally, the last word is "trust." it's not who you invite in, but everybody has to have a seat at the table. i go back to the battle we had early on in homeland security, you have to create a culture of sharing info, and there's always a reluctance to share with the governors or share with the big city mayors or share with the police chiefs. 23 you can't -- if you can't trust americans to secure america, who can you trust? if you can't have the private sector come in as patriots to help deal with the threats of sovereign incursion, organized crime, and all the long list of people given the ambiguity of the internet. we're attacked from mountain -- multi. sources. this is the place to have the kind of really, really robust collaboration between the public and private sector. >> if i can maybe roll that back

to the original conversations we had when we started the panel this evening and put that in the context of the dhs enterprise in the larger effort we're trying to do nationally and what a government response would be to this. i worked several issues as chairman of the interdiction committee in trying to migrate technologies successfully used inside nsa to the southwest border to be able to take advantage of pattern recognition, some of the cloud computing, and some of you who are not military by background, the j6, joint command, is the person responsible for the i.t. security and those types of issues. i remember sitting around the table talking with everybody saying i wish there was a cosmic j6 that could step up and ask to provide oversight or structure or be the convener or lead the conversation, so, i guess, i'll go back one more time in the context of the evolution of the

homeland security enterprise, is there a logical role or a broader role or a clearly defined role for homeland security, and is there a limit to the role if we move across boundaries in some areas we've talked about? how do you construct a model if you had the right people at the table, you can actually convene that meeting? >> 21st century creation has an opportunity to model itself in a different way. it's all about networks now, and that means you don't control things, but you cooperate with things, and you work together in a collaborative way. that sounds a little new-agey, but think about it practically, even the president doesn't have the power to control state and local government or the private sector as president truman learned. how do you get everybody working together? i think one of the things we've developed over a period of time at dhs is a recognition part of how you do that is get people to

plan, identify the problem jointly, plan jointly, train jointly, and to exercise jointly, and that gives you a running start into how things work. i'll give you a concrete example. in 2008, we had a couple hurricanes. one in louisiana, gustov and one in texas which was hurricane ike. as reform, we spent a lot of time and effort doing detailed planning which state and local government in the gulf, including taking a census of everybody in nursing homes and very detailed evacuation plans and backup plans for buses and i remember this having been part of it. when gustav was about to hit, we had the ability to evacuate everybody from new orleans who had to be evacuated including some 35,000 people in hospitals who, at the last minute, the add

min stricters believed had to -- administrators believed had to be moved. it's not like the president all the sudden had the power to order state and locals to do things, but the joint planning paid in in terms of cooperation. to me, part of the governance issue of the homeland security enterprise is about using collaboration and coordination as tools to move a lot of different independent bodies playing off the same sheet of music and producing a unified tune. >> so i'll just make a comment, by own observation watching from my television at home. i thought the performance of the local governments and governorses during hurricane irene, the hurricane came up the coast with the state believes their role are acting proactively in advance of the event. >> i think at the end of the day, we ought to start with, and

if we handed out cards, i'd like you to give me the definition of "cyber security." i don't think it will be unanimous. i think in this switzerland, could be dhs or the white house, why don't we bring the practitioners from the grid from financial services, from manufacturing base, ect., and dod and nsa and everybody and say, all right, based on experience, what do you see the greatest threats? is it access? is it encryption? what is it? i would suspect out of a meeting like that, and dhs, since dhs is basically overseeing the private sector anyhow, not a bad place to start, and then from that convening, and then you can probably hand out tasks and assignments. i'm a strong believer once you identify the problem, task somebody to it, and then come

back. it's fascinating, i mean, i asked this question rhetorically many, many times, and depending where you are and the problems you've encountered and what you look at over the horizon, there's a different set of priorities. as a country, we need to build on those priorities. it's just risk management, and then based on what we collectively agree that the priorities are, then we might find individual capabilities when the private sector can help build and respond to risks we see truly exist in the digital world. >> thank you. just to remind everybody, we're taking questions from the audience. if you filled out a card, pass them to the outside, and i'll pose them to the panel. i'll through this question to you, secretary, chertoff. does divided government divide our national security? >> that's a huge question. you know, i think the answer to that is actually no. i'm a believer in the system that we have, which i think

worked well, but it has certain challenges unlike the system in great britain or canada where someone somes in and has essentially they are given the range of power if they have a majority in parliament, they can pretty much take it as far as they can during the term until they are voted out. i think our system works well for us. it does create certain challenges. that being said, i think there's actually a surprising degree of agreement across party lines on the kind of core requirements of security. now, that doesn't always get manifest in what you read or see on the media where the media tends to gravitate to the reporters in the room, gravitates to people at the extremes, but i think at a working level, it does actually reflect the reality. the challenge we have is not a challenge of divided government. it's a challenge of world power. we do have to make decisions. they will be unpopular.

i remember when we did the western hemisphere travel initiative requiring a secure document to cross the land border with canada than was the case prior to 9/11. you know, the 9/11 commission recommended it. it was passed into legislation. we, again, the process of making that transition. there were some members of congress from the border districts that were adamantly opposed to it because they felt it would hurt the economics of the local communities. in our view, it was necessary to protect the country and to protect not just those districts, but those in the interior that might feel the brunt of an attack if somebody snuck across from canada, and, you know, there was a concerted effort to push back. we got it, you know, a substantial way down the road, and then secretary napolitano picked up the baton and got it

across the finish line. it doesn't matter if one was a republican or a democrat, but you had to be willing to take flak to make it happen. this is a broader comment maybe about security. in the end, there comes a point -- i'm the non-politician here. i never ran for office and never will. you have to look yourself in the mirror and say what am i here for? if i'm here to occupy a position, that's one thing, but if i'm here to do a job, figured out the priorities, then i have to make the decisions and drive the result even if it's going to wind up with a certain amount unpopularity and unpleasantness. that, to me, is what the solution is. >> secretary ridge? >> if we're going to talk about national security and policy, that involves a country teaking -- critiquing of things going on. we're not here to do that, and i'm not going to do that. if you talk about security,

vis-a-vis homeland security, the role the department is playing, and how it's playing out in the international arena with our friends and allies, i would say, and i would be very interested in secretary napolitano's sense, but one of the first things we did is try to convince the state department we need a presence there and thanks to secretary chertoff and napolitano, we have a presence in 75 agencies, and i think that's very, very important. from my point of view, ever since 9/11 from a law enforcement point of view and from an intelligence gathering point of view, we're locked up as good today as ever before. again, i think secretary napolitano's effort to try to push that into even more and more a state department co-sharing responsibility is -- so i think divided government in washington about foreign policy and domestic policy, you know, i think it impedes both branches

from operating as effectively as they could. looking at the global arena, i think it's working pretty well, but it needs -- remember i said, we have to push the border out, push the border out. the only way to do that is buy in and get allies and friends who buy into some of the things you want to do. i remember we had a tough time getting little information from the european union about travelers coming into the united states. beautiful thing secretary chertoff said, it's a nice start. he said it's not about foundation, you we have new algorithms. we have new information. in a couple years, they got it. secretary napolitano pushed it even further. i'll reserve my comments and just leave it at that. >> well, when i think one of the problems -- if we think of divided government as separation of powers, i do think that the inability of the congress to

reorganize itself to align with the creation of the new department has been a problem, and if it's a problem for a number of reasonsment one is the sheer number of committees and oversight panels and reports and things that the department has to undergo takes a lot of time and effort and resources away from other work, and in an era when we're talking about flat or decreasing budgets and maximizing and squeezing out of every dollar its highest and best use, i will share with you that there are a number of reports we are required by statute to prepare, submit in writing, not online, that i seriously believe are not ever read by anyone really, and so, you know, that -- that is a

problem, the resource demands that puts on the department, and secondly, the fragmentary notion of the actual oversight itself. now, you have a two homeland security committees, and they do a good job. we have a good relationship with both of them, but beyond that, then you've got a committee that all it's looking at is this issue or that issue or this issue, and what you miss is that kind of overall strategic oversight and guidance that one would want out of the congress, and so i keep hearing, well, you can't take up that reorganization. congress -- only congress can reorganize itself, and i would say that is a given, but at a certain appointment in time, i would hope there's the opportunity for some self-reflection in congress and reorganization in its own terms 20 meet this -- to meet this new department it's

now creating. >> yeah, real quick if i might -- i think all three of us are in complete agreement that one of the requirements, if you submit a report is that either the congressman or senator requires a report, the secretary's allowed to give them a test. 23 they pass the test on the report, they can ask for another one. if they don't pass the test, they are barred from asking for another report for a long time. [laughter] >> i'm with you. >> that'd do it. >> secondly, i think we saw this all the times, hundreds of times, i remember testifying that we had iraq and afghanistan going on, and i was on the hill more often than secretary rumsfeld. i bet you were too. that's the way it works. talk divided government. this is a great example, if the republican and democrat leaders house in the senate in the next two or three weeks, we'd be able to work with it, sit down and

say we're going to reorganize now, that's when you have to do it. by the way, as a member of the house for 12 years, i remember the lament of my colleagues day after day, walking to the floor lamenting among so many committees, so many subcommittees, but if you try to take it away from them, it's just, you know, it's just doesn't happen. it's the class question about divided government. they want to be the strategic partner that secretaries need, they really need to -- up to 100-plus committees? >> depends -- 108. >> well, to end this line of inquiry, seeing that i'm retired and my pension is assured -- [laughter] i would propose it's time to end random acts of after sight. thank you all of those comments. i appreciate it. i think we'll go to a lightning round here. i have a lot of questions here.

we all talked a lot about cooperation at the state and local level, and secretary napolitano from our home state, there's been some local legislative initiatives that posture local law enforcement officers in the role of quasi enforcement of immigration policy that could be assumed to be a federal responsibility. any insight as you build this vertically integrated dhs enterprise, what's the best way to move forward and have a discussion about immigration enforcement? >> yes. i gave a speech last week at american university. it's online, and it really talks about immigration enforcement now and what makes for smart and effective enforcement with a statutory scheme that's more and more out of kilter with the actual needs of the country, but it's a combination of

enforcement strategies that really allow us to prioritize those that we seek to remove from the country, and then encouraging and making it smooth as possible the business practices for legal immigration. >> next in the lightning round for secretary chertoff. i remember having wonderful discussions about this topic. in light of the decreasing budget, do you have any thoughts about the homeland security grant program and how best to move forward on that and give the biggest return for the money available including looking at leveraging our academic constitutions policy, think thanks, and so forth. i remember standing before you taking speers coming in when you tried to adjust the grant program. >> you know, anybody thought any grant program not giving them all the money and gave it to every else was a flawed program. funny thing is some communities

would go out in the run up to the grant announcement, they formatted themselves, and we're dangerous, it's unsafe here, and then the chamber of commerce said, what are you doing? there's always a little bit of a kind of a skits forensic attitude towards it. it's true for tom, and i don't know if it is now with the new budget, but the president would submit a budget, and we want to give you more money for grants. i don't remember during the four budgets i was involved with that congress said we're happy with it, but we're going to cut the budget. it's a very popular part of what dhs does for congress. that being said, look, the purpose of the grant program was to invest, make essentially capital investments, invest in the capabilities that would allow building up a foundation that the state and local governments would then operate. it was not meant to be a payroll

subsidy for state and local governments, and i think that's really the right approach. there are, frankly, some communities where literally hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions have been spent, there's a point in which you say, you know, you've got a lot of money. have you built the basic capabilities? you now have to be in the process of maintaining those. now, the one qualification i give is this. there's some areas in some communities where the vulnerability and the threat is enhanced because of the fact of what is being served by those communities, not just the community itself, but all the surrounding areas. it's an extraalties problem. it is, fair, for example, in some cities with ports and airports where there's an economic foundation for an entire region, it is fair, perhaps to have the federal government chip in something to recognize the fact that the

benefit of this is extending not just to the city itself, but to the whole region, but that being said, i think, you know, in line with this disciplined approach, it is time to look at what's been spent, what has been obtained for the expenditure, and to begin to talk about how you wean some of these communities off what they've begun to treat almost as an entitlement. >> secretary ridge, got a question here regarding -- this gets back to managing risk that you talked about earlier. there's 5 lot of focus on the discussion of terrorism, but as this enterprise evolved, i think we all agree through the course of the conversation, we deal with all hazards and all threats. it's not just a dod event, but comes into the homeland security enterprise. can you comment on the role of the perceived threat of terrorism relating to managing that entire portfolio? >> well, i think, obviously, the

profile of the terrorist, the sanctuaries of the terrorists, the tactics of terrorists, the number of terrorists has all changed in the past ten years, and -- but the threat of a terrorist attack has not, and one of the things i think as i look back over the past ten years is we proved ourselves to be undeniably a resilient country. we are a very resilient country, and we will always prepare, hopefully, that big event, that stray jeejic attack -- strategic attack like 9/11, and i think secretary napolitano can comment, but in the past 18-20 months there's been more arrests of the home grown type, the naturalized citizen, people may be here, so the scenario has not changed. we demonstrated we're resilient. the professionals are at it every day. we are no longer breathless and

anxious about it. we're in the right perspective. bin laden is dead, but how do you go in and deliver the message to salahiri? the bad news is you're in the cross hairs of the special forces. good luck. they do what they want over there, but the arabian peninsula, horn of africa, there's war against the belief system, an ideology with an interpretation of a historic and profoundly devout religion. we're not a war against tactics, but those who engage in it to take their perverted interpretation, kill innocence to advance their cause. i think we got that. i think we ought to keep it in perspective, remind ourselves 300 million people, the borders,

no whatter what we do, there's still a chance someone comes in and a chance it can be converted here. let's accept that as the new norm just as we accepted the new norm of potential nuclear engagement with the soviet union. what did we do? empowered professionals, managed that risk, and we let the rest of america building a diversified economy and the civil rights movement, the digital revolution. it's the new norm. we got it. homeland security gets it, and we will continue to manage that risk effectively i believe even under the most obscure budget conditions. >> to continue the discussion on the enterprise approach to the problems at a high level, we got a question regarding the current relationship with the department in mexico. we had the military killings in vera cruz. it's a problem in the border,

but do you want to update us on your current thinking? >> well, i think we've been involved with various efforts in the caladron administration, and that's an issue in part because the cartels have fingers that virtually reach into every state of the united states, and it's also important because you don't want the rule of law lost particularly in the northern states of mexico, and there has been danger of that over the past couple of years. progress has being made, some of the leaders have now been captured or killed, but i think that our relationships with moment koa, they are heading into their own presidential election cycle. this is why homeland security is such a complex field because you've got to deal with managing

that relationship, keeping that southern border secure, and at the same time, making sure that the ports are open and commerce is flowing freely between united states and mexico. why? there's hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on it. striking that balance, working with the government of mexico, all has to be done simultaneously. >> thank you all for your participation. i'll close with one question because we were talking about the role of the private sector and how we saw these large complex problems going forward. we had a robust discussion on cyber security issues, and it's clear there's a consensus in this panel about a way forward on that. maybe go through each one of you and talk about another problem, not really the cyber security where there may be a budding technology or solution out there, that's not necessarily going to reside in government, can serve as a basis in broader discussion in cyber security,

another tough problem that's going to require the private sector to help. >> well, i think one area is in the whole area of diagnostics, and the ability to be able to monitor and diagnose, if, for example, there's a bilogical agent introduced into the atmosphere quickly with appropriate mitigation processes and things available for that, and so i think the whole area of diagnostics is a very ripe one. >> it's a little of a cliche now, but the issue of big data and analytics. we collect a huge amount of data. it's video, there's stuff now on facebook and open source, social networks, there's information we collect at the borders, all kinds of things -- >> you can see the rest of the program in the c-span video library at c-span.org.

u.s. senate is about to gavel in today. there's 12 hours of debate on free trade agreements for colombia, panama, and south korea. if they use all those hours, there's a vote at 10 p.m. eastern. now to live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

gracious lord, whose glory has been revealed through the generations, renew within our senators a true understanding of your purpose for their lives, for our nation, and for our world. amid the challenges of our time, infuse them with a spirit of wisdom and courage so that they will be instruments of your providence. lord, use them to make an impact on the lives of the forgotten who lack hope and on all people who seek your presence. may your grace, mercy, and peace

be on us all now and stay with each one of us always. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., october 12, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rus of the senate, i hereby appointe honorable kirsten gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in consideration of the free trade agreements. there are three of them. there will be up to 12 hours of debate on these matters. the senate will have their normal recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today for our caucus meetings. expect to yield back some of the time. i certainly hope so, on the trade agreements. although people can speak as much as they want on these matters. but we are going to complete the action tonight, whether it's at 4:00 or at midnight. we will complete action on these bills today. the house is waiting our action. madam president, h.r. 2681 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 2681, an act to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards

for cement manufacturing facilities and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings at this time, madam president. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that following -- the following members who are staff members of various senators be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the colombia, panama, south korea trade agreement legislation. specifically chairman of the finance committee's staff members, jane beard, sarah pwab cock, danielle fiddler, laura yardoris k*eu and kisomo folly. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, republican obstructionism was once again in evidence last night and it's cost this nation millions of jobs.

last night republicans blocked the americans jobs act, president obama's plan to create two million jobs by giving tax cuts to businesses and middle-class families and investing in modern roads, bridges and schools. it's not the first jobs bill they blocked this congress, although i hope it will be the last. but it seems if the republicans don't really want to put americans back to work. they believe a weak economy means a weak president. so even though they've supported each piece of the american jobs act in the past, they blocked this job-creating legislation in the hopes of doing political damage to the president. we've not given up on creating jobs in america and will not let republican political games stand between congress and its most important duty: to put 14 million americans back to work. passing the jobs act would have been a step in the right direction. economists of every stripe agree it would have impacted the economy immediately and put up to two million people back to work. mark zandi, chief economist at moody's, and the economic

advisor to senator john mccain's presidential campaign, said this -- quote -- "given the high odds of another recession in the next few months, it's vital for congress and the administration to provide near-term support to the economy." close quotes. zandi says that the american jobs market could shave a percentage opponent off the unemployment rate. conversely, he warned without immediate action, the likelihood was high of a double-dip recession. so the last thing we should be doing is wasting time but that's what republicans are forcing us to do. last night a majority of the senate voted to take up this bill but republicans won't put politics aside even when the price of their politics is hurting struggling families. twaoeud conversation laughs night while the vote was -- i had two conversations last night while the vote was taking place

with republicans and both republicans said they would like to join in moving some pieces of this legislation, so we're going to do that. i'm glad to see there is some interest by my republican colleagues in doing that. many of the ideas we'll advance will be proposals republicans have supported in the past, as i've already indicated. and i think that they'll have to explain to the american people at a time of record unemployment why they continue to oppose job-creating tax cuts for small businesses, the middle class and other proposals they've supported in the past. as i said a minute ago, i look forward to working with my republican colleagues in moving forward parts of this bill that they like. at the end of the day, if they don't do this, the motive will be crystal clear. politics. so i hope republicans will be able to see past partisan posturing to support their own past proposals when we consider them individually in the next few weeks. take for example the payroll tax cut. my friend, the republican leader, supported payroll tax

cuts in the past. most republicans have. this is what my friend, the republican leader, said about the same tax cut in 2009 -- and i quote -- "it would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses, in the hands of individuals. republicans generally speaking from maine to mississippi like tax relief." that's part of the american jobs act. another senator sponsored a bill to give -- republican senator sponsored a bill to give tax credits to business to hire out-of-work veterans. yet, that same republican senator voted against the same proposal last night. it was part of the bill last night. republicans have supported these proposals in the past. they should have supported them yesterday. but democrats care so much about creating jobs that we'll give our republican colleagues another opportunity to do the right thing, and we'll move forward in the best way that we can to put these matters before the american people if necessary, piece by piece.

mr. president, today we have worked hard to be in the posture we're in today, to have votes on these trade bills. my friend the republican leader heard me say this too much, but i don't favor these bills. but the majority of this senate does. and i felt that it was important that we move these forward. i've worked with the republican leader to do it today. i think it's important to do it today. we have the president of korea, who is here in america. he's going to speak to a joint session of congress tomorrow. i look forward to a very productive day in moving these matters forward. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: before my friend, the majority leader, leaves the floor, let me just remind him and our senate colleagues and the american people that republicans were prepared to vote on the

president's second version of the stimulus bill last night. in fact, i offered consent that we have that vote, not the motion to proceed to it, but the actual vote. i'm not going to renew that request at the moment but just would say to my friend we are happy to have that vote. we're happy to have it last night. with regard to the pieces of it, my friend is correct. some of it, the pieces of this second stimulus might well be appropriate. i've recommended to the joint select committee that he and i appointed 50% of, that they take a look at some of it that could be included in a product we're going to get before thanksgiving before the senate and the house. we'd be entire to vote on the entire package. were happy to do it last night. and also happy to look at pieces of it. we do have, as the majority leader and i discussed before,

important work here in the senate. we've got trade agreements we're going to approve tonight. we've got three appropriations bills we're going to go to after that. the basic work of government, which we haven't done in the last few years, the american people would like to see us do. and we've got a joint select committee set up that could look at parts of the proposal that the majority leader is referring to. so i have some optimism that we'll be able to come together on pieces of it that we think make sense. i will say that as far as i know, there's not a single republican who thinks it's a good idea to raise taxes on over 300,000 business owners, which is what would happen under the so-called millionaires surtax. so there are parts of it that we very much disagree with. we have divided government. neither party controls the entire government. we'll only be able to pass those things that we do agree upon, and i think there are parts of the package that my friend refers to that could well be

agreed to at some point this year on a bipartisan basis. so, madam president, if i may, let me just turn to my prepared remarks. later today the senate will show democrats and republicans can in fact work together to make it easier for american businesses to create jobs. by passing free trade agreements with colombia and panama and south korea, we will help the economy and we'll put the lie to the ridiculous obama campaign claim that republicans are somehow rooting against the economy. nothing could be more ridiculous and absurd than to suggest that republicans are somehow rooting against our economy. the fact of the matter is if president obama were willing to work with us on a more bipartisan piece of legislation like this, nobody would even be talking about a dysfunctional

congress. there wouldn't be any reason to. but as we all know, that doesn't fit in with the president's reelection strategy. the white house has made it clear that the president is praying for gridlock. it's actually hoping for gridlock. so he has somebody besides himself to point the finger at next november. that's a big mistake. the american people will not tolerate their own president putting politics ahead of working with congress on the kind of bipartisan legislation that we know both parties could agree on right now. so this morning i'd like to repeat my call to the president to put the political play book aside and work with us instead on the kind of bipartisan job-creating legislation that the american people truly want. the trade bills we'll be voting on tonight are a good start. there's no reason we should have to wait nearly three years for this president to send him up to congress for a vote.

but they're a good start nonetheless. three years late, but still very important to do. now let's move on to some other things. we've pointed to areas like regulatory reform, tax reform and energy exploration where the parties could help create jobs without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. it's just the kind of bipartisan cooperation that the american people are actually demanding from us. and what i'm saying this morning is that republicans are eager and willing to join democrats in making that happen. the presidential election, for goodness' sake, is 13 months away. 13 months from now is the presidential election. there's plenty of time to campaign. why don't we put that off for awhile and do what we were sent here to do? but right now we've got an opportunity to work together. let's put aside the political play book and focus on results.

now i know that doesn't come easy for some around here. the senior senator from new york, for example, made it pretty clear yesterday that he's more interested in drawing a contrast with republicans than he is in actually passing bipartisan legislation that we know will spur job growth. but i don't believe the 14 million americans looking for work right now care more about contrast than about jobs, and the jobs crisis we're in calls for lawmakers to rise above these games. americans expect us to do something to help create jobs. that's what we should be doing, and that's why republicans will continue to seek out democrats who are more interested in jobs than in political posturing and work with them on a bipartisan legislation like the trade bills we'll vote on tonight. what we will not do, though, is vote in favor of any more misguided stimulus bills because some bill writers slapped the

word jobs on the cover page. a stimulus bill with the word jobs slapped on the cover page wrapped around a talking point tax hike is not our idea of what is good for america, and we refuse to raise taxes on the very people americans are depending on to create jobs. we need to be looking for ways to make it easier to create jobs, not harder. for nearly three years, republicans have told democrats again and again that we're willing and eager to work with the democrats anywhere, any time on real job-promoting legislation that both sides could agree on. i have been calling on the president to approve these three free trade agreements since the day he took the oath of office. all the president had to do was to follow through on these agreements and send them up to congress, and we would have had an early bipartisan achievement that didn't add a single dime to the deficit, that would have convinced people the two sides could work together, and that by

the president's own assessment created tens of thousands of jobs right here at home. but he didn't. the president chose to push a highly partisan stimulus bill instead that the administration said would keep unemployment below 8%, and we all know how that turned out. nearly three years later, the only thing left is the nearly trillion dollars it added to the debt and the government programs it created, and as for jobs, well, unemployment has been above 8% for 32 months straight, and according to the labor department, there are now 1.5 million fewer jobs than there were then. it's time to try something different. republicans have proposed a number of ideas that would not only represent a change in direction but which would also attract broad bipartisan support.

there is no good reason whatsoever for the president and democrats in congress to prevent us from doing these things. as i see it, the president actually has a choice. he can spend the next 13 months trying to get republicans to vote against legislation that won't create sustainable private sector jobs and which is designed to fail in congress, or he can work with us on legislation that will actually encourage small business to create jobs and is actually designed to pass. there is an entire menu of bipartisan job-promoting proposals the president could choose to pursue over the next year. republicans hope he works with us to approve them. americans are waiting. we're ready to act. the free trade agreements we're voting on tonight are a good first step. they demonstrate the way washington can actually help

tackle the jobs crisis. not by spending borrowed money to create temporary jobs. spending borrowed money to create temporary jobs. we have tried that. this will lower barriers to private enterprise, unleashing the power of the private sector to make and sell products, expand market share and in doing so creates sustainable private sector jobs that won't disappear when the federal cash spigot runs dry. but if we're going to tackle the enormous challenges we face, we need to do much more than that. with these trade agreements, we're showing we can work together to create jobs and help the economy. we can and must do more of this kind of thing. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership

time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will consider h.r. 3080, h.r. 3079, and h.r. 3078 en bloc, notwithstanding the lack of receipt of the papers from the house of representatives. under the previous order, there will be up to 12 hours for debate, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

senator from nebraska. a senator: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we

are. mr. johanns: i come to the floor today thankfully for the last time i hope in support of the pending free trade agreements with korea, panama and colombia. now for nearly three years, we have heard the administration say the right things, yet there were countless delays. it's been 1,566 days since the u.s.-korea free trade agreement was signed, 1,568 days for the panama agreement, and 1,786 days since we completed negotiations with colombia. finally, though, i believe the waiting has ended and the administration took action and has submitted these agreements for a vote. i am eager to vote for all three f.t.a.'s this evening and to see their job-creating power in action. by the administration's own estimates, these agreements will

spur a quarter of a million new jobs. we should all be able to agree that the benefits of trade are significant. in my home state in nebraska alone, more than 19,000 jobs and more than $5.5 billion in revenue are directly tied to exports in this last year, and with these agreements, these statistics will only improve. nebraska is a big agricultural state, and these three agreements eliminate tariffs and other barriers on most agricultural products, including beef, corn, soybeans and pork, all products grown in nebraska. in fact, according to the farm bureau and economic analysis from the usda, full implementation of these agreements will result in nearly

$2.5 billion increase in u.s. ag exports each year. now, in nebraska, this increase in agricultural exports is expected to total about $125 million per year and add another 1,100 jobs to our state. the benefits for my home state are not hard to see. in fact, they would be hard to miss. as the nation's fourth largest exporter of feed grains and a key beef state, the u.s.-korea agreement holds great opportunity and promise for nebraska. it immediately eliminates duties on nearly two-thirds of u.s. agricultural exports to korea. u.s. exports of corn for feed enter at zero duty, zero duty immediately. for the second largest corn

state, that's a significant leveling of the playing field. and it phases out the 40% tariff on beef muscle meats and the 18% tariff on variety meats. the colombia agreement offers great opportunity to both manufacturing and the agriculture sector. just one example -- nebraska manufactures and exports irrigation pivots to customers all over the world. currently, colombia imposes a 15% duty on pivots, which would be eliminated by this trade agreement. this will allow nebraska manufacturers to compete on a level playing field with european companies. the colombia agreement also eliminates barriers for many nebraska ag products, including beef, corn, soybeans, pork and wheat. in particular, the agreement

immediately eliminates the 80% duty on some of the most important products to the u.s. beef industry, prime and choice cuts of meat. the colombian agreement eliminates all tariffs on wheat and barriers on corn and on soybeans. now, unfortunately during these years of delay that i referenced at the start of my comments this morning, negotiators for other countries saw an opportunity. negotiators from the european union, argentina and canada saw a void that the u.s. companies, workers and farmers should have been filling, and they acted. as a result, our exporters now face even greater competition in these markets. for example, when the colombia-u.s. agreement was signed, american wheat farmers supplied 70% of the colombian market.

in 2010, u.s. wheat growers supplied only 45% of that market. during that time, the u.s. lost market share in clb to competitors like argentina and canada who did not wait on the sidelines and now they enjoy duty-free access. because of unnecessary delays, our farmers have lost out in markets that they dominated when this agreement was signed. but if we act quickly, if we pass these agreements tonight, u.s. producers can work to build back market share. madam president, i am confident that nebraska farmers, businesses and workers and those around the country, well, they can compete with anybody in the world, and in doing so, we can create jobs here at home. by the administration's estimates, the korea, colombia and panama free trade agreements will create, as i have

referenced, 250,000 u.s. jobs. now, the u.s. chamber of commerce took a broader view, and they have an estimate of 380,000 jobs to be created, but either number is worth celebrating. in may, the president called for a -- quote -- "robust, forward-looking trade agenda that emphasizes exports and domestic job growth." unquote. i'm glad the president has turned these words into action on these long overdue, job-creating agreements. these three bipartisan votes should have been near the top of the agenda three years ago. by now, we should be voting on new agreements that this administration has negotiated, not the leftover work of the past administration. during the challenging economic times our nation has endured, we should have been exerting every

ounce of energy to get our economy going. that is not done by heavy-handed government regulation, massive unsustainable new government spending. it is accomplished, though, by lowering and removing barriers so our job creators can flourish in a global environment. that's what we have today, an opportunity to give our job creators a chance to flourish in the global environment. we cannot ignore the fastest growing opportunities for american businesses, farms and ranchers are not in the united states. they are outside our borders. they are overseas in rapidly developing countries where 95% of the world population lives. i sincerely hope that these long delays have not hurt our ability to negotiate high-quality trade agreements, but more

importantly, i hope it has not hurt the ability of americans to compete in these growing markets. i look forward to the -- to working with the administration over the rest of this congress on forward-looking trade efforts. real progress forward would produce even more opportunities. i am optimistic this morning. i'm optimistic that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would join me in voting in favor of the trade agreements with korea, panama and colombia. together we can allow hardworking americans to create jobs here at home. i hope these three agreements are the beginning, not the end. madam president, following today's votes, we should revoice in an accomplishment, but more work remains to be done. and i'm prepared to tackle this endeavor just as i did when i was secretary of agriculture. for the sake of our nation, i

hope to find willing partners today on these three votes and in the future of more trade agreements and additional opportunities. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: i ask that the quorum call be set asaoeufpltd. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: i ask all time during the quorum call be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: madam president, i yield the floor and note 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 delaware. mr. carper: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: good morning. i was on the phone earlier this week with a friend back in delaware and we were talking about these free trade agreements negotiated by the bush administration and fine-tuned by the obama administration. my friend said why do we have free trade agreements anyway? and i said let's just go back a little bit in time. at the end of world war ii when the baby boomers came along, the u.s. was on, we were on top of the world. our industrial infrastructure was strong. we were a vibrant economy. we had come out of the great depression with all guns blazing and a lot of the rest of the world lay in ruins. some of the nations that would

go on to become our greatest competitors, that includes china and some others as well. korea and others were in the midst of wars of their own, and eventually the government at least in part, korea by communists, communist form of government. so the competition wasn't that great. and then the thing started to change. and the competition got a whole lot stronger. i remember when i was a kid growing up, at christmastime they were opening presents around the tree. i grew up in danville, virginia, we received a president, a knickknack or something from friends of our family. my father turned it over and it said made in japan. he and my mom sneered at that as if it were unworthy of us. why would somebody send us anything made in japan?

things really have changed. in some ways for the better, in other ways maybe not. but for a long time we were the 800-pound gorilla in the room. in terms of auto sales, our domestic auto producers had about 90% of the market here in the u.s. maybe more than that, well into the latter part of the last century. now we don't. our market shares in cars is less than 50%. the quality is good but the market share is less. if you look at the amount of cars that come to us from korea, roughly export about 500,000 vehicles to the u.s. this year, last year, next year. we will export barely 5,000 to them. roughly for every one exported car we sell they sell us about

100. that is not free trade. that is not fair trade either. they don't put tariffs on our cars. they have nine tariffs, clever ways to keep our vehicles out. it can deal with the environmental equipment on the car, the exhaust systems, fuel systems, you name it. they find all kinds of ways to keep our vehicles out. we don't do that. we don't play that game. and they take advantage of that. we want to sell poultry into places like panama, and in panama -- here in this country a lot of people eat white meat of the chicken. overseas a lot of people eat dark meat. it is a nice opportunity for us to export dark meat. if we want to skphorts -- export the drumstick and the thigh, there is a 260% tariff for those quarters going into panama.

a panamanian family would be asked to pay $36. $36 for $10 worth of chicken. we allow countries, whether it's korea or panama or colombia, just about any other nation to sell their goods and products in our country at will, without much at all in the way of barriers, without impediment, without tariff barriers, nontariff barriers. they impose barriers against us. the reason why, the situation we were in at the end of world war ii when we were such an economic juggernaut. a lost countries want -- a lot of countries wanted to protect themselves from the 800-pound gorilla, and that was us. we no longer document the market like we once -- no longer dominate the market like we once did. we want to ensure we have access to the market in ways we haven't had in some countries in recent

years. i'd like to think of one of the roles of government. one of the major roles of government is to provide a, what i call a nurturing environment for job creation, job preservation. that includes a lot of things. that includes making sure businesses large and small have access to credit. it means when folks come up with an idea, we have an innovative economy and a lot of technology. when people come up with a new technology they go to the patent office to file it and end up getting the patent and not years of litigation. we need to provide a workforce where people coming out of our schools can read, can write, can think, can do math, comfortable with technology and good worth ethic. obviously we need regulations. we need to consider cost-benefit regulations. as we do those regulations and get input from all sides, we

need a predictable tax policy, a tax policy that is progrowth. we also need access to foreign markets. folks who build things in this country need access to foreign markets. and in too many cases we don't have that. these trade agreements attempted to change that. very soon the family down in panama that has to pay now $36 for that same amount of drumsticks and thighs that now cost $10 here, that's going to change. and we're going to start exporting and selling cars in korea. they'll be able to sell here but we'll be selling tens of thousands of cars in korea in a year or two. in my state we used to make a lot of cars. we had a g.m. plant, chrysler plant. the g.m. plant is gone, the

chrysler plant is gone. starting next year, we'll be making the most beautiful cars of the world. some in finland call them the car ma. they get 60 miles per gallon. they'll be making a less expensive version of that car starting late next year in delaware. we want to make sure that they'll be able to use our auto plant to ship those cars -- auto port to ship those cars around the world. it would be nice to sell some of those to korea, nice to sell some of those to latin america, south america as well as in europe. on this agreement, for my state, 80% of our agricultural industry is, believe it or not, chickens. 80%. i don't know what it's like in iowa or in florida, but 80% -- or new york. but 80% of our ag industry is chicken. agriculture is one of the top three sectors of our economy in our state so it's a big deal. 80% chicken.

one out of every five chickens we raise in the dell march have a are exported -- in delmarva are exported to other countries. this is important for the ability to export vehicles, the ability to export chemicals and plastics. poultry, the ability for us to export some of our services network, the work we do in the financial industry, banking. a lost those companies would like to do business with whether it's korea or latin america. this legislation will enable them to do that. i think a lot of people are going to vote for the agreements today on trade agreements with panama. i think a lot of people are going to vote for the agreement with south korea. even some of the labor unions like u.a.w. support the south korean agreement. there is still some skepticism, some concern. understandable, understandable concern with the agreement with

colombia. and as everybody in this chamber knows and a lot of people in this country know, for years labor leaders, labor organizers have been the target of assassination in colombia. according to colombia's figures, in 2001, i believe there were about 205 assassinations just in that one year alone in colombia. and the numbers are a little bit confusing because that includes folks who are not necessarily labor organizers. people who in some cases were educators, maybe members of the labor union. 205 people in one year. can you imagine in this country if 205 labor leaders, organizers were murdered in a year. that's a smaller number than us. it's a huge number. the numbers have come down. in one of our conversations yesterday with our labor leaders in delaware, one of them shared with me the number reported by

the columbian government this year is, i think, 22 as of the early part of this month. that's 22 too many. apparently about half of those folks that have been killed are teachers who have been targeted by criminal elements by the drug folks, the drug gangs because the threat that each teachers, educators pose to their ability to, the drug folks to destabilize that country. so they're a target as well. the colombia government has provided -- i kind of describe it almost like a witness protection service down there, but it's different. they don't actually take people and change their identity and move them off to another part of the country and hide them. but they actually provide extra protection for folks believed to be at risk. that has caused a reduction by almost 90% in assassinations over the last decade. even if it's just two or one, we all know that that's too many.

the question for a lot of us is: do we ignore the progress? or do we say, no, we're not going to ratify a free trade agreement with colombia until there's no assassinations? we know that saying don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. that may trivialize this particular argument, and i wouldn't suggest that's the standard that we use. but substantial progress has been made. we have embedded in that trade agreement environmental provisions, labor provisions. they're now part of the agreement. done the same thing with panama and with korea. there is an implementation schedule that the government is expected to follow, has been following. it's been certified by the president. they're taking the steps they

are supposed to be taking, agreed to take in order to further reduce the level of violence. overall, rather extraordinary progress has been made in colombia. a friend of mine who works down there, is in the embassy, been down there i think a decade or so ago, describes to me the differences between night and day. it wasn't all that long ago when some gunmen rounded up i think 11 supreme court justices in colombia, took them in a room and shot them all dead. shot them all dead. we know it's not just teachers, not just labor leaders who have been targeted for assassination but literally people at the highest level of that country's government. government leaders, people who run for office, officeholders, law enforcement officers, judges. all kinds of people. for the most part it's changed. it's a whole lot better. the question is do we reward the improvement that's been made or we say no, that's not enough? or come back when you're pristine, pristine clean,

pristine pure. for me, it's what i wrestled with. i know others have as well. but i think in this case, we vote for our hopes, and our hope and our expectation is that progress has been realized. we'll continue. madam president, i think one last thing i want to mention before i finish. any number of folks have said to me nafta didn't really help us all that much. mexico and canada, and how do we know that these trade agreements won't help us either? we have learned a couple of things from nafta. one of the things we have learned is if we have environmental concerns, we ought to embed an agreement addressing those environmental concerns actually in the treaty. we have done that with all three nations. we have done the same thing with respect to labor provisions.

they are actually embedded in the agreement. the other thing that -- the other thing that i have said to folks who are just really concerned that this really isn't in our best interests, it's not going to help us economically, i don't agree with that, but think about it. to say this is not going to help us is really counterintuitive. think about it. we allow these countries to sell their goods and services in our country without impediment. we don't keep them out. we don't impose tariff barriers or nontariff barriers. we want to sell our stuff there, they impose these barriers, tariff or nontariff barriers. under the free trade agreement, the barriers that others put up to keep our goods and services out pretty much go away. in some cases, pretty fast. and it's hard for me to say well, if we're going to let them ship their goods and services to us, continue to, and they are

going to eliminate their tariff barriers or nontariff barriers, why shouldn't we do better? we'll do better. we build great cars, we have great chicken, we have great chemical products. those products will sell and we'll be able to grow our economy. the last comment is this. for us to come out of this recession -- we have come out of the recession officially, but there is still a lot of hurt and a lot of pain all over the place, including my own state. but for us to really come out of it, we need to grow the economy. we need to grow the economy. we need to grow it across the world. we make any number of things in this country. some of them are products, cars, chickens, chemicals, plastics. others are services. they are as good as any in the world. we want to make sure we have access to sell them anywhere in the world, including these three countries. their consumers will be better off, and our producers, our businesses will be better off. that is why i am happy to

support these agreements. the last thing i want to say, i just want to acknowledge the excellent leadership that senator baucus has provided for us. senator grassley is on the floor. this is an issue, these are issues that he cares a lot about. the partnership that he and senator baucus have had over the years i think is really a model for the united states senate. and they are not on the floor right now, but i also want to mention senator blunt and senator potomac, two -- senator portman, two of our republican colleagues who joined with me to make sure at the end of the day we didn't just vote for free trade agreements but we also had the opportunity to put in place trade adjustment assistance to ensure those workers who might be displaced, who would be negatively affected would have the opportunity to get unemployment compensation, have the opportunity to get job training so that they would be treated fairly as well. it's really a personification of the golden rule, treat other people the way we would want to be treated. we succeed in not just passing three free trade agreements, which i think will help overall

for our economy, we're also going to look after the people who might be adversely affected. and i want to thank senator grassley and the other republicans who provide this support to make that happen, too, and again to senator baucus, job well done. thank you so much. i don't know if anyone else is here to speak at this time. senator grassley? mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: well, can you believe it? we're finally here. after several years of waiting for these trade agreements to come to the congress, it looks like we're going to be able to vote on them, pass them and the president sign them and to become law. quite frankly, i thought soon after may 10, 2007, we would be voting on the colombian trade agreement because president bush was anxious to send it to the

hill, but the democrats took over the congress after the 2006 election, and the way that it was negotiated by the bush administration, it wasn't good enough, wasn't enough negotiation to go far enough on labor and on environment, so the new democrat-controlled congress said we have got to do more on those negotiations for environment and labor, so more was renegotiated. and on may 10, 2007, there was a news conference announcing a bipartisan -- announcing bipartisan results between the bush administration and the democrat congress that there was an agreement on colombia that had been reached on better environment and labor issues. so a bipartisan agreement, particularly when you have a

democratic congress and a republican president, you would expect, well, right away we're going to have at least colombia up here. at that time, south korea wasn't completely negotiated. well, the other party turned into a protectionist party and nothing has happened until now. the goal posts have been moved several times. but the free trade reality of creating jobs has come back to the other political party, and so i'm glad we're here at least now, maybe four years later, but still doing the right thing even though it's done later than it should have been done. now, everybody knows that every day in this congress -- and rightly so -- with 9.1% unemployment the topic every day is jobs, and that's as it should

be. the question gets asked a lot what policies can we implement here in the congress to create jobs? or at least to encourage jobs? and with over 9% unemployment in this country, we should, in fact, be talking about how to have an environment that creates jobs. freeing up trade is one of the best ways to create jobs, and these aren't just creating jobs. these are good-paying jobs because on average jobs related to international trade pay 15% above the national average. the truth is that for years we have known one clear and simple way to create jobs and stimulate growth in our economy, and that is international trade.

colombia, south korea, panama will create and support thousands of jobs, and i say even hundreds of thousands of jobs. so we must implement the trade deals reached with panama, south korea, colombia and do it today even though it should have been done in the case of south korea a year ago, in the case of panama and colombia three or four years ago. we entered into these agreements back in 2006 and 2007, and there is no excuse why we have to wait five years until now to get to them. yet congressional democrats and later president obama continued to move the goal post, putting up barriers that prevented their consideration and passage until

this day. there is no clearer or easier way of creating jobs in the near term and good jobs lasting for a long period of time than passing these trade bills and doing it now. and thank god the president has said that he would sign them. according to the national association of manufacturers, 100,000 jobs will be created by the implementation of these trade agreements. there are estimates from other sources that suggest the number of jobs may be even higher, and the administration and i believe rightly so believes that the higher number of jobs being created would be in a few hundred thousand. the obama administration estimates that in the case of korea trade agreement alone, 70,000 additional jobs for the

u.s. work force will be created. not only do these trade agreements expand opportunities for u.s. workers, they also present tremendous opportunities for american agriculture. it is estimated that the korean agreement could increase the price that farmers receive for pigs by $10 per head. so you see in the case of delaware, senator carper says that it's good for his poultry industry that's so dominant there where larger livestock is so dominant in the midwest. in my state of iowa, it's going to be a very good agreement as well. the colombian agreement will level the playing field for u.s. corn farmers so that they can begin to reclaim some of the market share that they lost due to high tariffs for our products

going down there but also even though we have lost markets, not just because of the high tariffs but because colombia in the last five years has reached agreements with other countries that have allowed those countries through their agricultural products, particularly grain, to take over such a share of the colombian market that previously american agriculture had. the agreement with the country of panama will bring about better opportunities for a variety of agricultural products including beef, poultry and pork, just to name a few. we have been waiting a long time to get to this point, and so as i have said two or three times, because i'm satisfied that we're going to get the job done, i'm eager to cast my vote in support of all three agreements. but as the finish line nears on

these agreements, the american people should be asking why president obama has dragged his feet on these agreements for so long because there has been a lot of wasted time and tax dollars with stimulus programs that were supposed to create jobs but did not produce any measurable amount of jobs, where if these agreements had been in place, these jobs we're talking about creating this day forward would probably have already been created. the stimulus plan failed to do what president obama promised americans, but i'm telling you, these trade agreements will do what president obama promises the american people they'll do in the way of creating jobs. now, of course, the president wants to try it again with yet another costly stimulus program as we were debating yesterday. we don't need more government spending to create jobs.

we know that doesn't work. what we need to do is create an environment so that the private sector will create jobs. so we know what works. these agreements are part of what works to create jobs. we need to continue opening markets for u.s. exports, and that's what these agreements will do. we need to pass these trade agreements and do it now. american workers need them now and the unemployed need those new jobs that will be created as a result of these. but for the economic future of our country, we should not stop with these three trade agreements. the president can provide certainty to businesses, farmers and workers by renewing his commitment to expanding trade

opportunities. the best way to do that is to ask congress to renew his authority to negotiate free trade agreements through a process long used. cooperation between the congress and executive branch of government by congress giving the president what's called trade promotion authority so he can work further agreements. in january of 2010, the president said he wanted to do -- to double exports by 2015, and that is welcome news, but actions speak louder than words, mr. president. the president repeatedly delayed these trade deals. he has routinely dodged the question of when he would request authority for trade promotion to negotiate those agreements, and he has not laid out a clear strategic plan for, in fact, reaching his own trade goals that he expressed at the beginning of 2010. we are now nearly two years

further down the road from that discussion he had. while it may be tough to reach the goals of doubling exports by 2015, we can still push on towards that goal, as we should. the more we do to open new markets and then get out of the way, the more we will help our struggling economy. there are three steps to continue helping u.s. businesses, farmers and most of all the workers of america, and particularly the unemployed workers of america. first, pass these three trade agreements with no more political gamesmanship by this administration -- and i think we're over that hurdle. secondly, congress should pass trade promotion authority so the administration can seek out opportunities for greater market access for u.s. products. and finally, the administration

make it a top priority to actually seek out more opportunities for opening foreign markets for our products. we live in a global economy. we once led the way of forming trade agreements and expanding trade relationships. the rest of the world waited for the united states to take the first step. but in recent years we've lost our way. the rest of the world isn't going to wait on the united states as they did for those 60 years. that's why we've lost market share to colombia that i just spoke about as one example. we need to reestablish our position as a world leader in opening and expanding markets. passing these trade agreements is crucial and long overdue, but it's a necessary first step. the next step is for the president to seek trade promotion authority and get back

in the game leading the rest of the world. i urge my colleagues to help u.s. businesses, farmers and our workers and, most importantly, our unemployed workers by voting in support of panama, colombia and south korea trade agreements. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i compliment my colleague for his kind words and good words on the floor. he's a great leader in this senate. the senator from newthe senatorf the truly great people i've met. today we're finally debating trade agreements with panama, colombia and south korea. it's been over four years since each of these agreements was signed. after a burst of international economic engagement under president bush we've witnessed nothing but passive indifference by the 111th democrat-led

congress and then in more recent years by the obama administration. by purr porting to support trade and seemingly acknowledge its benefits, the current administration took little concrete action to advance these or any trade agreements for years. in fact, the opposite was true. instead of devising ways to gain their approval, president obama used his time to create excuses for not supporting any of the three agreements. finally, early this year under relentless political pressure from congress and from the american businesses and farmers who will benefit from these agreements, the administration's excuses slowly melted away. then with every reasonable excuse gone and with bipartisan support for passing the agreements building and the end in sight, president obama threw another obstacle in the path of their consideration. this time he made new demands for more spending or domestic worker retraining programs. now let's consider that at a time when virtually every government spending program faces intense scrutiny and many programs are being cut, this

administration demanded more spending for a program of dubious value and with an unproven track record. in doing so, the president put his thirst for more spending ahead of the interests of the broader american economy that would benefit from these agreements entering into force, and he risked tens of thousands of jobs of his own administration -- that his own administration insists these agreements will create. his reckless demands ground any progress he had achieved to pass and ground those achievements to a halt. those agreements to a halt. accordingly it took months for congress to unravel the knot the president is making. meanwhile workers continue to lose ground as foreign competitors completed agreements to benefit their workers at our expense. with today's vote our nation can hopefully begin to awake from its trade stupor and confront

opportunities and challenges the world economy offers once again. frankly, i am baffled by this administration's disregard for trade. they should know better. our country benefits from free trade agreements. the reason is simple. the tariffs of our trading partners are generally significantly higher than those of the united states. free trade agreements, even the playing field for u.s. exporters by lowering the tariffs of the united states and trading partners to the same level of zero. really have to be enacted. for those who say they demand free trade it is hard for me to conceive a fairer trade than that. a level playing field where our products and services enjoy the same access and protections that foreign goods and services enjoy here in the united states. by leveling the playing field, free trade agreements promote u.s. exports. indeed u.s. exports to our free

trade agreement countries increased at a faster rate than u.s. exports to the rest of the world from 2009 to 2010. moreover, in 2010 u.s. exports to our free trade partner countries constituted 41% of all u.s. exports. yet, the united states has free trade agreements with only 17 countries, and that's out of the 234 countries on which the united states department of commerce collects trade data. our exports to our free trade agreement countries come close to dominating u.s. exports. i ask unanimous consent that the balance of my remarks be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that my next two remarks, sets of remarks, that they be placed in appropriate places in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, today i rise to pay tribute to

sergeant daniel david geer of the united states marine corps. sergeant geer was assigned to the third marine division, second marine expeditionary force. he was killed by a small-arms filer while on patrol in helmand province, afghanistan. sergeant geer was only 21 years of age, but as a testament to his character and reputation, hundreds attended his memorial service and hundreds more lined the procession route to where he was laid to rest. sergeant geer always wanted to be a marine. in fact, his friends and family from vermel, remember a young man who could hardly wait until his senior year at uletta high school before enlisting in the marine corps. even during his school years, his personality and character exemplified what it means to be a marine. sergeant geer was the captain of his high school soccer team and was always there for his

teammates. by all accounts whether in high school or as a noncommissioned officer he was a leader and loved by many. sergeant geer had a profound sense of duty and deep commitment to freedom and liberty. all he asked for was the opportunity to dedicate his life to the service and safety of others. his dedication and leadership was clearly apparent to the marines who advanced him to the rank of sergeant, a truly impressive accomplishment for a 21-year-old. as we grieve the loss of one of this country's finest, let us celebrate sergeant geer's life, his selfless and noble actions will never be forgotten. i know i am joined by the entire senate in skpepbgd heartfelt -- extending heartfelt condolences to sergeant geer's family. elaine and i will certainly keep them in our prayers. now, madam president, today i rise also to honor corporal arl

arlutta of utah assigned to the 4166th theater engineer command. as a combat engineer tasked with finding improvised kphroe seive devices -- explosive devices he never shied away from driving the lead vehicles. out in front protecting his fellow soldiers is where he was when an explosion took his hreufplt adding to this tragedy -- took his hreufplt adding tragedy, his mother died ten days before and the corps wall was days -- corporal was days away from his 22nd birthday. his family immigrated to the united states where corporal aruta graduated from high school in 2008. he joined the army reserves and left for basic training days after graduating from high school. after basic training, he attend

ed weaver state university for a semester and planned to continue his education upon his return. upon learning about corporal aruta's life i was struck by what family and friends had to say about him. his brother and also army reservist said corporal arruda was the -- quote -- "life of the party." his fellow soldiers said the corporal was the guy who pushed everyone and made everyone laugh. unquote. it is a special leader who has the unique ability to motivate others while simultaneously making them feel at ease. madam president, corporal arruda was a brave and selfless soldier. his family now bears a heavy burden. however, i hope they will take comfort in knowing i am joined by the entire senate in extending our condolences over the loss of corporal arruda and his mother. my wife elaine and i will have them in our prayers. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i want to speak on the trade bills, but i just first want to comment on the fact, as the senator from utah has reminded us of the sacrifice that a lot of young americans are enduring. it is one of the more difficult tasks that i have to sign the letters to the families of condolence on the loss of one of the members of their family anywhere in the world having to do with the armed services. i might say that another major part of our protection of our national security is the young men and women that we do not hear about, the men and women of

the intelligence community all across the globe that likewise are protecting our national security interests, many times in direct coordination with the u.s. military. and from time to time we have the casualities in the intelligence community as well. and i just want to express again my profound thanks and gratitude to those across the globe who are protecting the national security interests of our blessed country. it's interesting because we just learned of a plot that was a threat to our security interest. can you believe a plot to

assassinate a diplomat here in our capital city of washington? a plot that has intrigue like a b novel, that brings in the mexican drug cartels, a plot that, according to the attorney general, has been hatched by high levels of the iranian government. now the question is: who's in control in the iranian government? is it the supreme leader? is it the president ahmadinejad? or is it what this plot was traced to, which is one arm of their governmental apparatus, the revolutionary guard, the quds force? it doesn't seem that iran has

its act together. and even though we hear the protestations by the iranian ambassador at the united nations that this is all a fabricated lie, this perpetrator has already confessed. according to the news reports, they are saying that this plot included bomb attacks plotting on the saudi and israeli embassies here in washington. that's all here in our national capital. it was, according to the attorney general, conceived, sponsored and directed from iran. and this is obviously a flagrant violation of international law. an f.b.i. informant in the

transcript the justice department released yesterday asked the alleged plotter whether he was worried about innocent people being killed by bombing in a restaurant where the supposed plot was to have taken place, where the saudi ambassador was going to be dining. and in a reference to his iranian superiors, this bomber said they want that guy done even if a hundred go with him. well, these are the words of blood-thirsty people. and the people of the united states have every reason to be outraged, to view this plot as an outright attempt to assault

our nation and our allies. i appreciate the secretary of state calling for tougher sanctions. i want to hear what the administration is going to do to make it very clear that these kind of actions are not going to be tolerateed. and, madam president, i want to thank again the intelligence community, which is how i started my comments. i want to thank the intelligence community for what they are doing around planet earth day in and day out, gathering the information that protects us. madam president, i want to comment on the matter at hand, the trade bills. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work in bringing to the table and shepherding these

trade agreements through the finance committee and now here to the senate. madam chairman, i came here to talk about what's good with these things, and other people are coming here to talk about what's good, and all you hear is people want to blame the administration for something. well, why don't we say something good? not only are these agreements with south korea, colombia and panama critical to the u.s. economy, they are certainly critical to my state of florida's economy, and they send an important signal that the united states is not going to turn its back on economic engagement. these trade agreements are creating a level playing field for american companies by removing foreign barriers to u.s. exports and u.s.

investment. and oh, by the way, some of us would have not let these trade agreements go forward unless there had been also the passage of the trade adjustment assistance, which is assistance for workers that might be displaced as a result of the trade bills, especially with regard to retraining. and the bottom line of these trade bills then means real jobs for struggling american workers. now, if there is any doubt with regard to an economy like florida's, trade with colombia, trade with panama, trade in our agriculture sector with south korea, there is no question what's in the interest of my state, but this is also in the interest of the united states

economy. the u.s. international trade commission estimates american economic output will grow more from the u.s.-korea agreement than from the united states last nine trade agreements combined. that just from this one agreement, korea, more economic output than the last nine agreements combined. and the administration has taken extra steps to obtain these labor protections that i talked about. and further labor protections in the agreement with colombia and the necessary tax transparency in the agreement with panama. there's no question that free

trade, if it's done right, creates jobs and opportunities. in my state, florida is the launching point, the greatways to latin america, and thousands of jobs in florida depend on maintaining a vibrant commerce and the economic relations with our trading partners to the south, and if we fail to move these trade agreements with colombia and panama, we're going to run the risk of losing these jobs. madam president, i often say why does florida reflect the nation in a lot of our political mood? it's because the country has moved to florida, but what is also reflective of florida, florida is increasingly a reflection of the western hemisphere because of all of our ties into central and south america and the caribbean. and so under these agreements

that we're going to pass, emerging industries in florida such as aerospace is going to be able to increase its sales abroad while we're going to be able to hire more people here at home. and in the agricultural sector, our ranchers and our farmers, our growers are going to significantly benefit from these agreements. korea's 54% tariff on certain citrus products is going to be eliminated immediately or reduced to zero over five years. you know who that helps? it helps a specialty section of citrus called the indian river region, the region that this senator grew up in on the banks of the indian river, the delicacy fruit of the world, the indian river region.

they are a huge exporter of fresh grapefruit, and especially that grapefruit going into korea as a result of this agreement is going to be helped. the changes will create new export opportunities for the entire citrus industry, and the tariffs on florida beef exports to korea will also come down. madam president, you know, a lot of people don't know the presiding officer being from new york, they don't know that new york is really a great agriculture state. well, a lot of folks don't know that florida is not only how they would identify citrus but is a huge agriculture state, and a lot of people don't realize how much the beef industry, the ranches that this senator grew up on are so much a part of our

economy, and among the 50 states, florida being a leader among beef ranches. this is all going to benefit as a result of this trade agreement with korea. and the colombia and panama agreements include the important protections to prevent brazil, a major grower of orange juice, from shipping orange juice through these other countries to the united states. and these trading agreements are important for strategic reasons as well. obviously, colombia is a key ally in the region, and you have got to give credit where credit is due to the colombian government. the previous government of president uribe, the present government for the close working relationship with the united states military as well as our

intelligence community, and give credit where credit is due that the government of colombia pulled off that ruse that helped us bring our three american hostages that were held by the farc for years out of the jungles. south korea and panama are strategic partners and share mutual interest in regional security and economic stability. and so all of these trading partners, we are bound by our commitment and the rule of law, and these trade agreements are certainly going to help us to solidify our converging aspirations. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: it is my understanding that we are in morning business and i am allowed ten minutes, is that correct? the presiding officer: there is no restriction on floor time. mr. roberts: marvelous. i thank you, madam president. before the senator from florida leaves, let me just say from the banks of the indian river to the prairies of kansas and dodge city, i know that many people don't quite grasp the fact that there are a lot of cowboys in florida, and obviously we have a lot of cowboys in dodge city, but it just shows you from the wheat that we want to export to colombia, despite their trade agreements with other countries, you want to export citrus, beef, the same kind of thing, it just shows you from kansas to florida we have similar interests. i thank the senator for his comments and for his comments yesterday in the markup and the finance committee and for his support. a lot of my remarks will be very duplicative of his. it just shows you that in

regards from florida and kansas, we have a very strong mutual interest. mr. nelson: would the senator yield? mr. roberts: i would be happy to. mr. nelson: and also in a bipartisan way we are supporting this. isn't that a wonderful term to finally throw around, bipartisanship where we can come together not as partisans, not acido logs, but in the best interests of the country. mr. roberts: i share the senator's views and am very hopeful that this will not be the last trade agreement we see and again thankful to the senator for his comments and his work. madam president, some of my remarks will be duplicative of senator hatch and the senator from florida, as i have indicated, but i want to really stress on behalf of our nation's farmers, ranchers and manufacturers, service providers, i rise today to add my voice to the chorus of strong

support for passing the pending trade agreements with colombia, panama and korea. to be candid with you, and i'm not trying to be a bad news bear here, but i wasn't at all convinced this day would ever come, but after learning that the president was sending up the trade agreements to congress, i think the word i thought of in my head was finally. maybe five finallies -- finally, finally, finally, finally, finally. because it's been five years, five years that the u.s. trade agenda has been put on hold, and quite frankly i think caused by demands by certain environmental groups labor, a rewrite of the trade assistance, but yesterday under the perseverance of the chairman, senator baucus, and others on the committee, finally the senate finance committee did pass the trade agreements. we had a markup. it was amidst protesters.

it was quite a -- not a unique situation but one that the chairman handled very deftly. i would call the attention to the members in regard to their interests in the trade agreements that they have any possible concerns, read the remarks by senator hatch and by the chairman, senator crapo, senator wyden and senator kerry. more especially senator wyden who got a little static from the audience undeservedly. the good news, the pending trade agreements add up to $13 billion in additional exports. they estimated 250,000 jobs, that's estimated by the american chamber of commerce. just a few big picture highlights right now. korea imposes an average -- a 54% tariff for agricultural products. within three years after implementation, 95% of these tariffs drop off with the most

zeroing out after a decade for beef producers, and that's a big thing for kansas. that means the 40% tariff on beef products will be fazed out over 15 years. around 75% of the ag and non-ag exports entering colombia will be duty free upon implementation of the agreement duties on many other tariff lines will be fazed out over a five to ten-year period. panama while reducing import duties is important, expansion of the panama canal is not only an important project for u.s. bidders, it is a geographical key for international commerce, transportation and security, security for the region. but just from the agriculture perspective, just for the aggies, the three pending trade agreements represent a $2.5 billion upon full implementation in regards to exports, more than 22,000 jobs. the kansas farm bureau estimates that the three agreements in total are expected to increase direct exports by $130 million

for kansas ag producers, and an additional 1,150 jobs. finally, these trade agreements will help put american workers and exporters on a level playing field with our competitors, and hopefully, hopefully, hopefully, a tough job, regain lost market share. let me emphasize, really emphasize, in the case of two of these three agreements -- panama and colombia -- under normal condition their exports already have duty-free access to the u.s. market. the pending agreements merely create a two-way trade and allow u.s. exporters the same treatment which we already grant their countries. it makes one wonder what all the fuss was about. and the fuss, the five-year fuss and delay hurt us, not them. and that's the point that i think everybody should finally

discern. but five years. three years under this administration. the goal post continued to shift and action was delayed indefinitely. two years under the previous administration basically with objections by the house of representatives. as a consequence, u.s. producers and exporters lost market share to our competitors. let me give you an example. over the past two years u.s. compete producers have already lost -- wheat producers lost market share to argentina. in two years the u.s. share of the columbian wheat market dropped by 30%, including corn and soybeans. the lost market jumps to 57%. in addition, the largest food processor in colombia announced shortly after the canada -- colombia trade agreement went into effect that they were sourcing all of their wheat

purchases from canada, accounting for half of all the wheat imports. previously u.s. wheat growers were the largest suppliers of wheat in colombia. in july, the korea-european trade agreement went into effect. and within the first month, according to the korean customs, the european union exports are up 34%. that's lost market share going to the european union, not the united states. notably aerospace equipment increased a whopping 1,693%. you can see where that is going. kansas is a major player in the aviation sector. we export $2.7 billion in transportation equipment last year. with the european union agreement, you can see what happens with lost market share. finally, with regard -- the

united states to future trade and trade in general, the united states must be trusted to stand by its word. trust in your word and trade means everything. the dithering on these trade agreements has mott been lost on our -- not been lost on our trade partners or the world at large. it is not job growth and job creation we've gambled away. all the demands calls into our part occupier integrity. -- part our integrity. as the former head of the senate intelligence committee i'm quite familiar with who is a friend of the united states and who is not. in the 31 countries and 10 territories that make up the southern command there is a growing sense of anti-americanism. venezuela's president hugo chavez is a perfect example. a decade ago colombia was essentially a failed state suffering from a war waged between the guerrilla groups and

the paramilitary groups, the farc and the e.l.n. much has changed. much, much has changed over ten years under the leadership of then president uribe and continued by president santos. an amazing job. u.s. support during this time helped to establish a strong relationship and form a key ally in an increasingly hostile area. so strengthening our economic relationship just makes sense. the unjustified delay on our part is not only embarrassing, it has potentially damaged our credibility, in my view. as kansas and the rest of our nation continued to slow out of these tough economic times, we must do all that we can to foster economic growth. opening foreign markets to u.s. goods, services and agriculture is a long overdue and obvious part of the solution. we can't stop with passing these three trade agreements, pat

ourselves on the back and call it a day. i assure you that our foreign competitors are not stopping. in fact, madam president, it's been reported there are approximately 100 trade agreements being negotiated right now, give or take, that do not include the united states. 100. we, the united states, we're negotiating one initiated in the waning days of the bush administration. the transpeufbg partnership -- the transpacific partnership. it has the potential to include other countries later in the future. while negotiations continue, there will soon come to a point when talks will stall because the u.s. negotiators' hands are tied without the protection of trade promotion authority or fast track as some refer to it. without t.p.a., negotiating countries will have little reason to negotiate much less make any difficult concessions

until they know that the u.s. is serious. fast track provides the substance to these talks. why is t.p.a. not a priority? i am concerned that as the administration quietly defers on seeking trade promotion authority, negotiators will be unable to negotiate and trade will take a back seat once again. the signal may well be, and i hope this is not true, these trade agreements may be the last under the current administration. let me get off the bad news bear stuff and the stubborn facts, and facts are stubborn things, and the five-year delay, let me give credit to the president for finally sending these agreements to congress but let's not become pacified in the long overdue action. in order to stay competitive with our foreign partners, we need to stay in the game. madam president, i yield back.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i'm going to speak for up to ten minutes, but i would first defer to the gentleman from michigan for a unanimous consent agreement. mr. levin: i thank the senator from louisiana. madam president, i would ask after senator vitter has completed his statement that i be recognized for up to 30 minutes, and that -- and that i yield time during that 30-minute period to senators on this side. we control the 30 minutes immediately after senator vitter is completed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, today is the one-year anniversary of president obama and secretary of interior salazar finally lifting a year ago the formal moratorium on drilling in the gulf of mexico following the b.p. disaster. but, madam president, that did not solve the problem them, simply lifting the formal

moratorium. and i return to the senate floor today to again say still a year later that problem is not solved. because, madam president, there is a continuing permit logjam. it started with a de facto phoerpl -- moratorium. now there has been a trickling of permits and now there is a logjam that has dramatically slowed down activity in the gulf of mexico. madam president, that must change. of course this is vitally important for my state, louisiana, and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of my citizens. but, madam president, that must change for the good of the country too, for our economic well-being and increase our revenues to address deficit and debt. and as we talk about jobs and

various jobs bills and jobs proposals, we must focus on the domestic energy sector and we must change the situation, reverse this slowdown virtually shutdown of the gulf for the good of the country. and i hope we do that. madam president, to that end, i join congressman jeff landry yesterday in a meeting with obama director michael bromwich and other administration high-ranking officials who have to do with this very permitting and lease process. we again went to sit down with these officials in the obama administration to again make this very point. the formal moratorium was lifted a year ago, but the problem persists, and we need to do better. we need to issue permits in a much more healthy pace. we need to get that important domestic energy activity back up

and running in the gulf of mexico. recently, madam president, there was an independent study by h.i.s. global insights, and that put some hard numbers on this situation. that had study said, madam president, that leasing in the gulf of mexico is down about 65% from preformal moratorium levels. it also opponented out that the waiting line of people and companies to get permits has almost doubled. it's increased 90%. so what does that mean? that means far less activity in the gulf. far less energy activity for the country. and far fewer jobs, jobs we need now more than ever in this horrible economy. let me give you some other relevant numbers. at the end of september, just a few weeks ago, thrust -- there

were 21 floating rigs in the gulf of mexico of which about 18 are currently drilling wells. compares three moratorium to 29 at that time. that's a 37% drop in both the number of rigs and those drilling. since the moratorium began, 11 rigs have left the gulf of mexico. only one of these has returned. in addition, three more are sitting idle. seven of these rigs have left for african countries like egypt, liberia, the congo. three have gone to south america, mostly brazil, also french guinea. the remaining rig was mobilized to vietnam. this amounts to 60 rigs lost based on the original contract terms for these rigs. the loss of these rigs isn't

just loss of equipment. it's loss of important economic activity and loss of jobs. it's lost spending of $6.3 billion and direct employment, lost direct employment of 11,500 jobs over just two years. and when you look at indirect employment. it's arrest multiplier that brings that lost job figure to way more than that. again, madam president, it started with the formal moratorium. the formal moratorium was lifted one year ago today, but the problem persists because there was a de facto moratorium and there is still a permit logjam. another example of this enormous problem isn't just permitting. another example is lease activity by the administration. and again, that is completely separate and apart from

permitting. but the dramatic decline in lease sales, lease activity that the administration is spugt -- putting out shows the same problem mind-set. what do i mean? in the last fiscal year, the administration had no new lease activity. zero. nothing. nada. what that means is just a few years ago the income to the federal government, from lease-sales was almost $10 billion. and that has fallen like a rock, gone through the floor, and is now zero. that's another indicator of a problem onset of this administration leading to a dramatic economic slowdown. we need to reverse this. we need to do better for the economy, for jobs, and for that important revenue it brings to the federal government which could lower deficit and debt. and so, madam president, as we talk about the need to create

good american jobs, as we also talk about the need to grapple with our deficit and debt situation and dramatically lower deficit and debt, as we talk about the need for revenue to be part of that picture, domestic energy has to be part of the solution. and it can be a big and productive part of the solution to both of those huge problems. we need to create good american jobs and the need to lower deficit and debt. if we aggressively pursue domestic energy production starting in the gulf, fully reopening the gulf, get the permit process to a pace at least equal to preformal moratorium levels, get lease activity back on line, and then expand to other areas of our resource: off the atlantic, pacific. we had enormous resources that are now off limits to energy

production. if we do that, we can grow jobs, we can grow federal revenue and lessen deficit and debt. we can help attack both of those major economic problems for the country. again, yesterday i met along with congressman landry with director bromwich to make those points and give specific examples of what we can be doing to get down that path in favor of good american jobs, lowering deficit and debt. i hope it made a difference. ultimate little only time will tell. madam president, this needs to be part of our overall economic approach. this needs to be part of our deficit and debt reduction approach, and it can make a major contribution to solving both of those problems. i hope on a bipartisan way we will do that and urge that in the senate and the administration will break through the negative mindset

that they have had for several years and do that in an aggressive way. our country needs it, our workers need it. we need it as taxpayers to lower deficit and debt, and this would be a very productive way forward. thank you, madam president. with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, more

than 14 million americans are without work. the american jobs act would help up to two million americans get work or keep their jobs. it would prevent the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, firefighters and other first responders. the jobs bill would give tax cuts to millions of small businesses, would give incentives to those businesses to hire new workers. the american jobs act will provide a payroll tax cut to millions of american families. it would help our returning veterans find jobs. the american jobs act would put thousands of construction workers on the job repairing crumbling schools, building and repairing roads and bridges. now, the chief economist for moody's, mark zandi, estimates that this legislation would add two percentage points to economic growth and will reduce the unemployment rate by up to

one full percentage point. economists surveyed by bloomberg believe this bill -- quote -- "would help avoid a return to recession." that's their words. that's what the majority of our economists say. both sides of the aisle across the political spectrum. how does it do this? the bill uses ideas that both democrats and republicans have supported in the past. it would not add a dime to the federal budget deficit. its provisions are overwhelmingly popular with the american people, according to all of the public opinion polls. madam president, we should be debating this bill. we should be offering amendments. as the majority leader has said we would be doing. we should be improving it. we should be preparing to vote on it so that millions of american working families can get the relief that they need. we should do this so we can

demonstrate to our constituents and to the world that we will come together to act in the face of crisis, and yet here we are, roadblocked again. why are we roadblocked? because our republican colleagues last night voted not to allow us to even begin to debate legislation that has ideas that so many of them have supported in the past. senate republicans are once again walking down the filibuster road. the vote last night was not a vote on the american jobs act because filibuster rules of the senate require 60 votes, senate republicans last night were able to prevent the senate from proceeding to a bill addressing the jobs crisis. now, we all know that the rules

of the senate give the minority the power to stop us from holding this debate, and exercising that power as they did last night is profoundly mistaken. what they are doing when they do that is they are using a filibuster to prevent the senate from even debating this bill, and what that does in turn is elevates partisan interests over the good of the country. now, a number of us are going to be speaking today because we are deeply concerned, concerned that republicans once again have signaled to an anxious and a skeptical nation that we cannot address a great challenge of the day. we're deeply concerned that the single most important need in the country, jobs, will not be

debated and remedies will not be sought because the republicans once again are walking down the filibuster road. if republicans oppose this bill, which is their right, vote against it. better yet, madam president, if republicans oppose this approach, for heaven's sake offer an alternative jobs bill, offer a substitute. an alternative, something where the american public can compare what is in our jobs bill with what republicans presumably favor. they oppose ours without saying what they favor except vague references to less regulation. everybody is in favor of eliminating wasteful regulations, but nobody believes that you can do serious deficit reduction or create serious

numbers of jobs by just freezing regulation. and by the way, the small business community doesn't believe that. the surveys which were taken of small business people by their own organizations say that the biggest problem small business has is not regulation and it's not taxes. it's a lack of demand. and this bill helps to create demand by putting dollars into the pockets of our workers. there is a tax cut here which is very important to continue to help stimulate that demand. so what's coming across the american public loud and clear these days is that the democrats here in the senate have an alternative. the republicans are filibustering that alternative without offering one of their own. madam president, the majority could seek to break this

filibuster by forcing the republicans to sustain the filibuster and to try to wear them down. that process, however, at this time in this congress is not a practical approach because it takes weeks or even months to break a filibuster. it's just simply too late in the session for us to practically be able to do that. and by the way, the american people should not have to wait that long in any event for us to act. but there is another way to overcome a filibuster. it's not just forcing the filibusters to filibuster. that's one way to do it. it takes usually months in order to succeed, but it would dramatize where the obstruction is. but the other way to overcome a filibuster is for public opinion to wear down the republican wall

of object instruction, and that is probably the only practical path available for overcoming this filibuster at this time of this congress. so i hope that the president will use his bully pulpit to make clear to the american people that it is the obstructionism of filibustering republicans that prevents us from taking action on a jobs bill. now, the president is very effect -- has very effectively gone around the country supporting his jobs bill, and i commend him for doing that, but what we need him now to do is to take that bully pulpit which is unique to the president, to the presidency, and to use that bully pulpit to make it clear to the american people that filibustering republicans are obstructing us from even taking up a jobs bill.

the majority leader has made it clear that this is open to amendment. if the republicans have a better idea, they can offer a substitute. but what's going on here now is that without any alternative of their own, they are preventing us from addressing the major issue of this country. the republican leader last night repeatedly asked unanimous consent to send this bill back to the calendar if we did not get 60 votes to proceed. the republican leader wants this bill to go away. well, this jobs bill is not going to go away. it should not go away. and the republican leader is engaging in wishful thinking if he believes that because he is -- he and his colleagues on that side of the aisle are

filibustering a jobs bill, that that means that the filibuster is going to succeed and that this bill is simply going to be returned to the calendar. the majority leader has said that he is going to try again. senator reid said specifically he is going to bring this bill back again by using his rights after he made it clear that he is going to reconsider this bill last night. he has the right to do that because of the way in which he voted last night and voted with the majority at the end in order that he could reconsider this bill, a technical way that he could -- he already had expressed his view very strongly supporting cloture, but he also then, in order to bring this bill back under the same cloture petition, then filed a motion to reconsider as a member of the majority side at the end after he switched his vote so he could

do so. and i commend the majority leader. i commend him for taking that action. i commend him for signaling to the american people, to the media, to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that he is going to try again. we're not simply going to fold our tent and go away. the majority leader is going to move to reconsider at a time that he believes is appropriate, and then there will be another effort to break a republican filibuster so that we can at least debate this critically important legislation. madam president, i want to refer to and introduce for the record and ask unanimous consent that the matter i'm now going to read from be made a part of the record. this is an analysis on the jobs plan by mark zandi. he is an economist at moody's. this is what he said about the

president's job proposal -- "it would help stabilize confidence and keep the united states from sliding back into recession. it would add two percentage points to g.d.p. growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point. the plan would cost about $450 billion, about $250 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases. many of the president's proposals, he said, may be unlikely to pass congress, but most importantly they have a chance of winning bipartisan support." they deserve bipartisan support. again, most of these proposals have been made by republicans, not just by democrats, but even if we cannot get the republicans to support the proposal because at least on the spending side it

is the president's proposal, on the revenue side it is now a democratic senate proposal in terms of the millionaires surcharge, but if the republicans will not vote for it, if they will not offer a substitute, an alternative of their own, if they will not seek to amend it to improve it, for heaven's sake allow us to take this bill up. i'm happy to yield to the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i thank senator levin. i have tried to explain this. i was on some radio calls this morning with stations in dayton and cincinnati and all over the state. the questions they asked were just that. wait a minute, i understand people being against a proposal, but why would the leader of one political party say -- about a jobs bill when unemployment is this high in your state and my