snoer from new hampshire. hurricane katrina hoon i ask that the -- shaways i ask that the -- shaways i ask that the quorum call call be reas you understanded. i ask that the morning business be extended with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

camr. reid: madam president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. officer without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i'm pleased that my friend, senator mcconnell, and i have been able to reach an agreement to approve a number of judicial nominations in the coming weeks. the senior senator from vermont, chairman leahy, has kindly added his wisdom to make this a better agreement. for that i'm very grateful. this is a victory for our nation's justice system. while i still believe the senate should confirm all these nominations this afternoon to address the judicial vacancy crisis we face had this country, the step forward is one we should all feel good about. the senate will hold up-or-down votes on seven district court judges before the end of this work period. we'll vote on another five district court and two circuit court nominations by monday, may 7. on monday, the senate will

consider miranda du. miranda du is a very well-known lawyer in nevada, but the interesting thing about this good woman is she is representative of a true american success story. she was born in vietnam and at the end of the war in vietnam, people who were of vietnamese an ssesstory could not leave, if they were full-blooded vietnamese. if you weren't, as miranda was, they let them go. and she left vietnam with her family in a boat when she was just eight years old. she was in refugee camps and finally when she was 11 years old wound up in alabama. not of course speaking any english, with her family. she speaks -- not that this matters -- but without a single trace of any accent.

she's been such a good lawyer and she is -- and i was so happy when i was introduced to her before the judiciary committee. her parents were there. her family was there. it was really a wonderful opportunity to see what america is all about. as i've caughted, she has extensive litigation experience and enormous love and appreciation for nevada. i look forward to confirming this woman with such a tremendous dedication to public service. approving 14 new judges speaks to progress we can make when we here in the senate work together. more work remains to fill all the nation's judicial seats and ease the backlog of cases. we can't jeopardize the right to a fair and speedy spie trial for americans who now live in districts with judicial vacancies, some that are emergencies. it is crucial that bipartisan

cooperation continue and the pace of confirmations move forward. with one in ten jed judgeships vacant in our country, more delays would circuit sen would l of the people. the backup is unfair to individuals and ultimately costs the taxpayers money. so this shortage of judges is also unnecessary. i'm pleased, i repeat again, that there's been agreement to confirm these 14 judges without wasting anymore of the senate's time. i think we all agree, regardless of political party, we must act quickly on the small business jobs bill passed overwhelmingly by the house. democrats are eager to move this bill forward, which will improve innovators bein access to capitd streamline how companies sell stock. bipartisan legislation will will also be introduced regarding the ex-im bank which will create

300,000 jocks and generate more than $1 billion in new revenue for our country. the minority leader is supportive of the export-import bank in the past. this legislation also has the support totally of the national chamber of commerce. tow it will build on the -- so it will build on the important work we've done this week to help create jobs. it isn't a 2.8 billion job builder like our highway bill but it will allow capital formation to be made much more rapidly. today the senate passed, as i've indicated, this transportation jobs bill that is such a job creator, that it's one of the rare occasions we have in the senate where we can real lie look to creating through one vote millions of jobs. and we also today, as i've just indicated, reefed a bipartisan agreement to ease the delays in our nation's courts. passing a small business jobs bill would help companies expand and export their products, another bipartisan accomplishment the senate can be proud. to that i refer to the ex-im

bank. i appreciate my rend from iowa being patient. it seems there are times when he really wants to speak, sometimes i don't know he's coming, but it seems i show up about the same time. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i ask permission to 1350eb speak as in morning business, i don't disagree with anything that the majority leader says, but i would like to bring these facts out about judicial vacancies. there are 88 judicial vacancies, and some of those are emergency. in the case of the emergencies -- and i don't have the number for the ones that are emergencies -- but only about half of those have had names suggested to us by the president of the united states. and in the case of the total of 88 vacancies, the president has only set up 43 nominees for

those 88 vacancies. so i want to make it very clear -- something that's quite obvious -- that the united states senate or any of its leaders can't expect the senate to act upon vacancies where there aren't nominees because we have to wait until the president sends somebody up before we review and before we can vote on them. i think that it's easy to make it -- republicans look bad, and it's intended to make republicans look bad when they use those vacancies as a statistic without making it clear that the president of the united states is the one that is dragging feet as far as filling those vacancies. then if they get up here and we don't act on them, then obviously we're the ones that are responsible for that. now i would ask unanimous consent to speak 25 minutes as

if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, one or two times a year out of the many speeches i give on the floor of the senate, i report to my colleagues on -- who say that i have to wake up the department of defense to get more respect to audit reports coming out of the inspector general's office. and in the last two years, i've been very critical, and i'm somewhat critical now, but there's been vast improvement by the department of defense in responding to their use of and the quality of their audits. so i'm coming to the floor once again to report on the latest results of my ongoing audit oversight review.

and i'll refer to some figures, but to kind of give you an overview for the last three years, we've roughly reviewed between, in my office, between 100 and 120 audit reports. and so, you know, three years of each year somewheres between 100 and 120. and the reason that i emphasize you have all those reports, they have recommendations in them, and we've seen a reluctance to move ahead, to carry out the results of those audits, and in so many instances we'd save so much money if the audit reports were carried out. and when you spend $100 million every year in the inspector general's office of the department of defense, you would

expect that you ought to get some result from that $100 million expenditure. and we're seeing some improvement. our work examines audits issued by the office of inspector general of the department of defense. after receiving anonymous letters in early 2009 alleging mismanagement of audit resources, i and my staff initiated an in-depth oversight review. this is my third report in that series. the goal of the report is to assess audit quality in 2011 and make recommendations for improvements. i'm doing this work for one important reason: like investigations, audits are a primary oversight tool. in fact, audits make -- may be the most important tool; that

is, because the auditor auditore submission to watchdog how the taxpayer's money is being spent in the department of defense. that puts them on the money trail 24/7. if fraud is occurring, that's where it will happen. that's where they need to be, and hopefully the auditors will find them. these audits cost the taxpayers, as i said before, roughly $100 million a year. are the auditors getting the job done? are they rooting out waste, fraud, and as a result are they attempt to go save the taxpayers -- attempting to save the taxpayers money? my first report was published on september 7, 2010, clearly indicating that the audit oversight capabilities of the inspector general's office were

seriously degraded. the inspector general at that time, gore den a dell -- gordon adell responded to my first report in a instructive way. he had a plan designed to improve audit quality. in order to ensure progress on reforms, i issued a second report january 1 last year. i called this one a report card. it evaluated and graded 113 reports issued during fiscal year 2010. i awarded those 113 reports a grade of d-minus. the overall score was driven by the very same deficiencies pinpointed in my first report. instead of being hard-core, fraud-busting contract audits,

most were policy and compliance reviews. there was no attempt to verify the exact dollar impact of the misguided policies examined. such reports offered zero benefit to the taxpayer, though many of these reports were mandated by the congress of the united states. i identified out of those 113 reports, 27 good reports that involved commendable and credible and in some cases knitty gritty audit work. were it not for their long completion time all of those 27 reports would have earned very top scores. at the conclusion of the second report, my staff presented a list of the top-nine audit roadblocks standing in the way of reform. after the second report was issued, inspector general hadell issued a sharp rebuttal

disagreeing with me very much. he complained that i did not give sufficient credit for 18 audits that identified $4.2 billion in potential monetary benefits. i addressed inspector general hadell's criticism on the floor of this senate on two separate occasions: july 5 and july 28 last year. at that time i admitted that he had a legitimate gripe about my report. my staff reviewed the matter and upped the score on 12 of the 18 reports, but those adjustments did not move the overall score of the 113 reports out of that "d" range. today i'm issuing my third audit oversight report. this one examines the latest batch of reports, the 121 reports issued between october 1, 2010, and september 30, 2011.

they're known as the fiscal year 2011 audits. i'm giving those reports an overall score of 3.51, or "c." as my report indicates, there was an across-the-board improvement in every category except one. timeliness. i'm very happy to report to my colleagues that audits' quality appears to be improving. the best possible indicator of improvement is the doubling of top-rated reports. those numbers jumped from 27 reports, or 25% of the total, in the year 2010 to 70 reports, or 58% of the total production, last year. that's better than the a twofold

increase. the auditors have achieved a breakthrough. the parent progress is promising. the most important area of improvement in audit quality was in the strength of the recommendations. there was a surge in this key area. it was propelled by calls for accountability and recovery of wasted money. though modest and limited number, these initiatives had force. recommendations are the business end of an audit, and these recommendations were based on rock-solid findings. at least 50 reports of the 121 arrived at findings that documented flagrant mismanagement, waste, negligence, fraud and even potential theft. 16 of these reports recommended that responsible officials be considered for administrative

review. a comparable number contained recommendations for the recovery of improper payments. and ten reports, largely those on stimulus projects coming out of the $814 billion stimulus bill that was voted on in february of 2009, recommended -- on those ten reports recommended that wasteful projects be terminated. these reports jumped out at me, as i hope they would you if you read these. they are quite remarkable. but 50 reports with rock-solid findings should generate 50, not just 16 set of hard-hitting recommendations. so i'm sorting out 16 out of the 15 for special recognition. these 50 reports add up to a good beginning, but they don't confer world-class status on the

inspector general's audit office. within the grand totality of the 121 reports published in 2011, they are a drop in the bucket. the vast majority of reports still offer weak recommendations. most reports merely instruct audit targets to do what they are already required to do under law and regulation. in my opinion, that's a waste of ink and paper. there are still four distinct trouble spots leading intense -- needing intense management attention. the biggest problem continues to be the number of unsatisfactory reports. while i can no longer say that most reports were poor, at 40% the proportion of low-scoring reports remains unacceptably high. those reports continue to suffer from the same deficiencies identified in a report

commissioned by inspector general heddell in response to my first report three years ago. this report was dated october 7, 2010. it is known as the quest report. their conclusion, which matched my own, were as follows -- quote -- "we do not believe audit is selecting the best audits to detect fraud, waste, and abuse. your organization does not audit what truly needs to be done. some audits hold little value in the end." end of quote from the quest report. as i have said many times, far too many audits offer little or no benefit to the taxpayers. that was still true in 2011. long audit production times remain another big problem. old reports offer stale information that weakens the

power and relevance of audit reports. between 2010 and 2011 the average time needed to complete reports jumped from 13 months to 16 months. as i understand it, those numbers don't tell the full story because they do not include the extra weeks or months reportedly needed for the planning and approval process that occurs before an audit even begins. add those numbers together and you're really looking at probably a one and a half years to publish a completed audit. stale information reduces audit impact to zero over a period of time. the quest report previously referred to pinpointed the root cause of this problem -- quote -- "it is apparent that in the planning phase of audit

selection, audits are written to fit a team as opposed to a team established to conduct the needed audit." end of quote. such organizational inflexibility drives long completion times. it also leads to the publication of audits having objectives that are so narrow and limited in scope that they're virtually worthless. audit teams need to be organized to support more challenging and more relevant audit tasks. mr. blair indicated recently that was moving in this direction. there are two other outstanding problems. far too few reports -- just nine in all -- verified actual payments using primary-source accounting records. failing to nail down exact dollar amounts of waste and mismanagement, including those resulting from misguided policies, ends up undermining

the credibility and completeness of audit reports. give you an example: using invoices and contracts to estimate payments would not appear to meet the most stringent audit standards. a more acceptable procedure is essential because the defense finance and accounting services' long-standing track record of making erroneous and unauthorized payments, in the face of such sloppy accounting practices, verification of payments should be mandatory. lastly, referral rates to the defense criminal investigative service, the dcis, are still far too low. only five reports generated potential criminal referrals which appears to point to a lack of concern about fraud. surely there was enough grist in the 50 reports which documented

egregious waste and misconduct to warrant additional referrals to the defense criminal investigative service and/or the justice department. a number of audits stand out as candidate for further review and possible prosecution. i have urged secretary panetta and acting inspector general to reexamine some of these issues. acting i.g. halbrooks has put the public spotlight on disgraceful and scandalous waste and alleged misconduct that demands accountability. unfortunately, unless the recommendations in those hard-hitting audits are somehow converted to concrete action, all this good work will amount to nothing more than a bunch of auditors howling in the wilderness. it will simply fall through the

cracks. converting tucked recommendations into concrete action takes determination and it takes relentless follow-up. the key is making such agencies do what they agreed to do at the conclusion of an audit. however, all indications suggest that corrective actions proposed in 16 hard-hitting reports have run into some serious roadblocks in the pentagon bureaucracy. without high-level intervention -- in other words, eliminating those roadblocks in the pentagon bureaucracy -- most, if not all, accountability and savings measures could be slowly and quietly squashed in bureaucracy. a recent report from the navy clearly indicates that this phase awaits at least one of those 16 reports and probably

all the others as well. in order to assist in the audit resolution process, i have asked secretary panetta to conduct a top-level review of all the allegations contained in those 16 most disturbing reports out of the 121 that we looked at in this last year. i urge the secretary to establish a reasonable path forward on all unresolved recommendations. until there are meaningful consequences and real penalties for such gross waste and misconduct, the culture of the organizations involved will not change. in other words, that culture is going to perpetuate lack of concern and action on the recommendations of these auditors, because in a bureaucracy -- not just the department of defense -- but if heads don't roll, you're not

going to see any change in the culture. without accountability, there will be no positive results. good audit value will go down the drain. unabated waste of the taxpayers' money will continue. clearly significant progress was achieved between 2010 and 2011. but the inspector general's audit capabilities are not yet out of the woods. much more work remains to be done. management needs to build on the strengths exemplified by the 50 reports containing rock-solid findings and 16 sets of hard-hitting recommendations. those reports could be used as models or building blocks for improving audit quality in the future. in order to start producing more top quality reports, management

needs to consider the following suggestions, which i have eight. bring report recommendations into balance with the findings. increase calls for accountability and recovery of improper payments. verify all payments using primary source accounting records. organize audit teams to match more complex and challenging tasks. pick up the pace of fraud referrals to the defense criminal investigative service. develop a more effective audit follow-up strategy. and lastly, follow up to ensure that prosecutions occur where warranted or necessary. these adjustments should be achieved using available resources. correct these problems and top-quality reports will be the norm. all these goals are within easy

reach. once accomplished, audits will be fully aligned with the core mission of the inspector general. in closing, i want all the auditors in the inspector general's office to know that i consider their oversight mission to be one of the highest importance. there is nothing more important to the taxpayers than having an aggressive team of auditors watchdogging how the taxpayers' money is being spent. i know there has been a concerted effort over the past few years to improve the quality of their work. i deeply respect, deeply appreciate and will support these efforts. they are starting to pay off. i can see results of all the hard work. i encourage all the auditors to keep moving ahead until the job is finished, and i urge mr. blair to unleash the auditors. i want them to be a tiger,

encouraging them to call waste what it is, waste. let them follow their instincts and the guidance in their audit manuals that instruct them -- quote -- "think, fraud and plan audits to provide a reasonable assurance of detecting fraud." end of quote. i yield the floor, and i guess i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: madam president, i

come to the floor to speak about an opportunity to expand access to capital for small businesses by lifting what is an arbitrary limit on credit unions' ability to serve small businesses. i have done this on a number of occasions over the last couple of years so the president knows that this is a cause that's important to me, but it's important to me because there is a phenomenon in our country where small businesses are starving for credit yet the federal government is still standing in their way. and i'm talking about the smallest of small local businesses. these are the men and women who need 50, 100 or maybe even even $200,000 to move from their garage to a retail storefront to renovate their sales floor or to upgrade their equipment and expand. they are often too small to be worth a bank's time or they just don't fit the lending guidelines or the bank's corporate

headquarters. but these small business owners know credit unions in their community that have money to lend and these credit unions truly want to help. they probably see each other at little league games, at church, they play cards together, they socialize. but instead of being able to offer these bridge loans that the small local business needs, the credit unions end up saying sorry, we really want to help you but the federal government has set a limit on how many businesses we can loan funds to. now, we're moving to the jump-start our business startups act or the jobs act if you follow the acronym that the house passed last week. that bill is aimed at increasing the availability of credit to startup companies by expediting and easing the process of undergoing an i.p.o., an initial public offering. i think that's a noble goal. especially as our economy still struggles to create jobs. but the problem is we're still leaving the little guys behind, the people in each and every one

of our neighborhoods that want to expand our businesses and hire people as soon as possible. and, unfortunately, the jobs act is aimed at companies with revenue under $1 billion. let me repeat, billion with a b. these companies may well need help with i.p.o.'s, but i'm talking about offering relief to traditional main street businesses. so in light of this, i'm still committed to allowing credit unions to increase the amount of money they can lend to small businesses. so i will once again introduce the bipartisan small business lending enhancement act as an amendment which would open up additional credit to small businesses without costing taxpayers a dime. now, i know the president has many small, wonderful towns in her state and i want to -- where you see many small businesses. i want to talk about a couple of the business owners in my state of colorado.

stacey hammond is a coloradan, she owns the first street thereon in thornton. she got turned away by a bank because her loan was too small to be worth the risk. she went to her credit union, they wanted to help her, they helped her, she opened a larger business and she has created jobs in the process. i'm also talking about people like lisa her 3457b of -- herman of broomfield, colorado. she is co-owner of happy cakes bake shop in denver's highland square and she needed a loan to expand and cater more wedding. she was turned away from her bank but went to the local credit union and that credit union was able to provide her with the loan she needed to continue to grow her successful business and hire more coloradans. stacey and lisa don't need a billion-dollar i.p.o. they need a small bridge loan. we could be making an enormous difference, a huge difference in those local communities with mere pennies on the dollar of

what the jobs sacramento focused object -- act is focused on. my amendment would be the only single piece of the jobs act that would actually help small businesses or directly create jobs. put simply, credit unions specialize in these small, small business loans. in fact, the average credit union small business loan is just $219,000. and in contrast, the federal reserve have told us that many banks have quit considering loans under $200,000 because they're not worth their time. credit unions know these small business owners and they have money to lend to them. unfortunately, federal law still limits the amount that small business loans a credit union can extend to 12% of their assets. nearly 350 credit unions are facing this cap, and over 500 are having to slow down or stop their business lending together

together -- altogether, i should say. that's hard to believe. it seems like such a missed opportunity. in effect, we in government are telling these financial institutions that they cannot help create jobs in their local communities. that's why my amendment would double the amount of money that credit unions can offer small businesses. now let me turn to my friends in the banking sector. we've heard from banks over the years that they think it's unfair to have to compete with the credit unions. but the fact is this isn't about banks or credit unions. it's about small business. and these financial institutions quite frankly serve very different small business populations. credit unions serve the smallest of small businesses. who often must resort to relying on credit cards with comparatively high interest rates in order to invest in equipment to grow their businesses. these are business owners who have been turned away or ignored by and large by banks.

we're talking about new loans to new and growing small businesses. after over 100 years of lending to small businesses, credit unions today only represent 5% to 6% of all business -- small business loans. i should say small business loans. even if increasing the limit on credit union lending were to double their market share, banks would still have 90% of the market to themselves. now, i've also heard the banks say this proposal is unproven or somehow an unsound way of increasing small business loans. but the truth is that credit unions have been making small business loans since their inception in the early 1,900. that's why my -- 1700s. by my math, that's over a hundred years. and until 1988 there wasn't any limit on how much they could lend. the credit unions' own regulator

, has endorsed lifting or even eliminating the small business lending cap. the ncua chairman testified that -- quote -- "increased business lending is good not only for the credit union but also for its members and the communities in which the credit union operates" -- end of quote. i got to say i'm frustrated because i think -- why can't we agree on uninhibited small business support growth and job creation. let's not let the squabbles between banks and credit unions keep these jobs from out-of-work americans. madam president, i'm going to begin to conclude and i want to acknowledge that we passed earlier today a bipartisan transportation bill, and in so doing we voted -- everything under the sun from contraception to privatizing rest stops. so i sure hope we can have an

open amendment process and include this important piece -- this important amendment, this important legislation that would help small businesses. and after all, if we're going to tell the american people that this bill is about increasing access to capital -- we've heard that said over and over again, this is about access to ceap -- we sure better be willing to start with those small business owners on main street. colorado common sense, new hampshire common sense, could prevail, and we ought to at least have a chance to consider this important issue, debate this idea on the floor of the senate, and i hope include it in the jobs act. because access to capital is what is needed and the credit union sector is willing and able to do so. madam president, thank you for your attention. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: madam president, i'd ask concept the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president, thank you. i ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 7:00 p.m., the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without

objection. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 11:00 a.m. thursday, march 15, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 334, h.r. 3606, the i.p.o. bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i reserve the right to object. i'm going to explain my concerns. let me start by quoting george w. bush. george w. bush said free markets are not a jungle in which only the unscrupulous survive, or a financial free for all guided only by greed. then he continued, tricking an investor into taking a risk is theft by another name.

what we're in the process of considering is taking a house bill related to the production of capital for small and emerging businesses and considering it on the floor of this senate without due process by a senate banking committee. now, we need that process because the house bill is full of problems for investors that will create a marketplace where investors can be deeply damaged. it is our responsibility in this body to make sure that as we produce a streamlined system for small companies and start-up companies to access capital, we don't create basically a scheme for pump and dump operators seeking to defraud american citizens.

that's why we need due consideration in committee. now, i can't speak to the challenges with all the portions of the house bill, but i can speak to a specific section of the house bill called crowd funding because i have been working with others, including the distinguished presiding senator, senator bennet from colorado and scott brown from massachusetts to say let's utilize this crowd funding tool but do it in an effective manner. now, what is crowd funding? crowd funding is saying let's take the power of the internet, just as we have person-to-person lending facilitated by the internet. let's take the power of the internet and enable people who see small start-up companies who are seeking capital investments and give them a chance to present their ideas and for folks to invest in those companies. so they might receive thousands of small investments enabling

them to take their dream forward, to the benefit of the investor and the benefit of the company. but what is wrong with the way that the house drafted this? i'm going to give short examples. it enables companies to raise up to a million dollars by providing no financial information, no financial information. that is not an investment market that is a scam. second, companies do not have to go through a registered intermediary. so, in other words, you or i tomorrow could start up a web site and say companies sign up and investors sign up with no sorts of protocols for the registering of information and no system required for the protections of investors. so that is a major mistake in this legislation. third, under the house bill, a

person could say hey, here are ten stocks, ten potential companies to put your money into, and through that action could take 100% of your income, your annual income in one fell swoop. so as we create this new, this particularly interesting marketplace full of potential, we don't want it to be a place where no financial information occurs, no rules for the intermediaries and people can be taken for their whole annual income in one fell glance. that is no way to build this wonderful potential marketplace. to continue, the house bill lacks any advance public notice, so a company can provide to the s.e.c. notice on the same day they offer their stock and upon getting 60% of the amount

they -- they are seeking, of their target amount, they can walk away with the investors' cash like that. so, in other words, offer it, no chance for the s.e.c. to take a look at it, collect your million dollars, walk away, you didn't provide one ounce of financial information. folks, if you haven't seen the movie "the boiler room," i encourage you to do so because you will see how scams actually not permitted by law were used to defraud earnest american families. in this case, we're just paving the path to predatory investing schemes. so that is a problem. the house bill allows anonymous stock promoters so that it encourages the opportunity for pump and dump, which is a reference to anonymous promoters saying how wonderful something is and not identifying themselves as having a connection to the company that's

offering its stock. it does not address the issue of dilution. you know, if you had a chance to get on the start of starbucks, i'm going to start up a company and wouldn't it be great for you to be on the ground floor and you say you bet and you get 1% of starbucks stock as a result. well, you would be very rich today. but what about a company that proceeds to use a strategy of diluting the initial investors so your investment in the start-up is worth nothing when the company actually gets traction as a successful entity? well, that's certainly an issue. these issues have all been wrestled with and addressed by the bill that senator bennet, senator brown and myself have put together. now, the other sections of the house bill have similar problems. i won't speak to those problems because there is other folks who

are much more knowledgeable about it, so i will stick to my section and use it as an analogy of why this entire bill should go through the banking committee. let me read to you a letter from matave. their slogan is investment for everyone. isn't that the perfect slogan for crowd funding? investment for everyone. they address their letter -- "dear senators reid and mcconnell. we are a crowd funding intermediary based in durham, north carolina. we understand the senate will take up the house bill shortly. we are very concerned about language in title 3. while we appreciate the broad exemption written by the house, the language does not protect investors and puts the crowd funding industry at risk of significant fraud. however, more responsible language does exist." and then it refers to the bill that the senate has been working on. and then they proceed to list many of the flaws that i just listed.

so here are folks out in the private sector who want to see a very successful process, they want to be an intermediary, they don't want to see this potential industry brought to a halt with a terrible reputation because it becomes a predatory industry. i have another letter here from launcht. this latest bill, the crowd fund act, that's the senate version, is important. unlike previous bills, we have a senate bill with a bipartisan sponsorship, a balance of state oversight, industry standard investor protections, workable funding caps. it lays out why this work should be in this bill. and finally, i want to note the perspective in the "new york times" editorial. it is titled "they have very short memories." it's scathing in its critique of

the process we're engaged in. house republicans, senate democrats and president obama have found something they support -- a terrible package of bills that would undo essential investor protections, reduce market transparency and distort the official allocation of capital. they go on, of course supporters don't describe it that way. they say the jobs act, which is the name of the house capital formation bill, would remove burdensome regulations that they claim have made it too difficult for companies to raise money from investors. never mind that reams of congressional testimony, market analysis and academic research have shown that market analysis has not been an impediment for raising capital. in fact, it's too little regulation that has been the root of all recent bubbles and bursts. the dot com crash, enron, the mortgage meltdown. those free-for-alls imploded, causing mass joblessness. wouldn't it have been great if when those deregulatory efforts

that didn't deregulate in a positive way cutting out unnecessary red tape but in negative ways which created a wild west marketplace with all kinds of predatory practices, wouldn't it be nice if the senate had stood in at that moment and said we are the cooling saucer? i've heard that term ever since i came to the senate. we're the cooling saucer. well, we cooled our heels for three weeks without -- with the transportation bill on this floor, and we weren't able to consider one single transportation amendment during that three-week period. that wasn't cooling saucer. that was deep freeze. but now we have gone from deep freeze to bullet train. we need to slow this train down. we need to have due deliberation so we create the sort of deregulation that is so important for the future growth of the united states of america and the future success of

american families. i'm going to withdraw my objection, mr. president, because i wanted to make a point now that hopefully will help guide our deliberations over the next couple of days. it's not that we shouldn't be getting to this topic. we certainly should, but we need to do so in a manner that works for american businesses, small businesses, start-ups and families, and the house bill doesn't do it. thank you, mr. president. i withdraw my objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i appreciate the work done by the presiding officer and the junior senator from oregon on this most important piece of legislation, and especially the problems that the two senators i mentioned

feel is having with this legislation, so i appreciate very much the opportunity i have had to work with the two of you today and we will continue to do so. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that on thursday, march march 15, at 1:45 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar numbers 408 and 461. that there be 15 minutes for debate divided in the usual form. that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on calendar number 408 and 461 in that order. motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order and that any related statements be printed in the record, that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate then resume legislative session.

i ask unanimous consent the senate now move to s. res. 396. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 396, supporting the goals and ideals of multiple sclerosis awareness week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that senator ayotte be added as a cosponsor of this legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate and that any statements related -- in this matter be placed in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2191, a bill to amend the americas with disabilities act of 1990, and so forth.

mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask for a second reading. that's for purposes of placing the bill on the calendar, but i object under the privileges of rule 14 to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business tonight, the senate adjourn until thursday, march 15, at 9:30 a.m. following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. following that morning business, the senate will proceed to consideration of h.r. 3606, the i.p.o. bill that we have spoken

of previously and as indicated under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, mr. president, about 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, there will be two votes on confirmation of groh and fitzgerald to be trial judges in our federal judiciary. additional votes are possible. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

helping one another, not federal grants. [applause] america must be restored to her proper role in the world, but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. the panel of u.s. ambassadors from countries including libya, egypt and

tunisia spoke in washington on monday. they talked about the economic and political prospects in the countries and others. the national u.s.-arab chamber of commerce hosts this 45 minute event. islamic ipo ambassador for that. very interesting. we are going to convene now on our first panel in full attendance, and i think perhaps should we start down at the end with ambassador gray, and if you could give us five minutes of introduction and then we will start with our q&a. >> thank you very much into all of you for coming this afternoon. i want to thank our hosts and particularly david even though he couldn't be with us today to do previous commitments

overseas. - gordon gray, the u.s. ambassador to tunisia and obviously 2011 was the year of profound political change in to nisha. in addition to these political changes came the realization of the importance of job creation to the success of the transition in tunisia, and this led to the further opening of the market's to the foreign trade and investment because without those opening of those markets and the easing of regulations jobs simply aren't going to be created to the degree that they are necessary. one of the advantages for investors is its location. it is within close proximity obviously of not only north africa but also europe and sub

sub-saharan africa obviously with the market population of just over 10 million people it's not an overwhelmingly large market for u.s. goods but it adds a regional platform is very appealing. it's also the only country and north africa that can trade with all of its neighbors. it's party to other agreements such as the agreement that allows it to trade freely with egypt, jordan and morocco. this means there are several opportunities for u.s. businesses that are more than 80 u.s. companies and tunisia now. some of the company's president and tunisia have had success in the sector manufacturing also, and some of the exports that u.s. companies have made include things like we'll, seals,

machinery, chemicals and the light. looking ahead for opportunities for u.s. companies, infrastructure is very important and a very much needed. large-scale tourism projects, industrial projects, and these include things like highways and railways, phosphate plans and others, so franchising is another real opportunity for u.s. companies because we have such a comparative advantage and because there is a large middle class in tunisia. for all these opportunities that i've mentioned, the overseas private investment corporation can help u.s. investments. the of the 2 billion-dollar fund for the middle east and north africa and they are eager to spend some of this money in

tunisia. we just had a team visit at the end of last month with a particular eye on franchising opportunities. i am mindful of the need to keep the panel going. i will allow time for questions and answer after my colleagues give their presentations, but we do have an information sheet there are some of the back of the room and i also got some copies and i also have a business card of our commercial attache if anyone is interested and want to get in touch. thank you very much. >> thank you, ambassador. i'd like to turn now to the ambassador. >> good afternoon. it's been a pleasure serving in morocco, a country unlike some of the other countries involved where its stability is greatest claim to fame in the business world. when you consider all that has happened in the arab spring and

realize how little the impact has been on larocco in terms of its health it's very impressive, and i was sitting with my wife at lunchtime today and i was saying what is the principal thing that larocco has going for it and she wasn't putting an eyelash and said its brand, the monacco brand, and that's true. this is a country that has been built in a very significant way on the basis of tourism and you will go all through the united states and find all kind of people that know very little about the politics of the part of the world like currently serving but they will tell you they've been to larocco or they know about larocco and its welcoming quality. they know about its positive feeling of its people. i frequently say that the first

two words the learning english are you're welcome into our house and business, welcome into our country. i think that is a very telling factor. to be sure, the arab spurring has had a very positive effect and that there has been a change in government, a change in constitution and now you have a coalition headed by a man who is part of a real political party that organized in a way that said this country could have reforms in a meaningful way. his majesty is still the most powerful figure in the country, but is doing so acting in a manner that is consistent with the sharing of power of the government. so, briefly what you have here is the opportunity for american companies to come in. we already have 150 or more in the country.

they do very, very well. we have a very strong central bank. the understand what they're doing and the understand the nature of commerce in the country, and i think it's a very powerful thing. are there concerns? of course there are concerns, that all of the reforms will not turn out in the way that you would hope. but i feel you can set that aside for the purpose of this meeting today and say that there is real reason for optimism. >> thank you, ambassador. i would like to turn to ambassador of cretz. >> that's a little difficult. >> secretary clinton said last week what a difference a year has made exactly one year ago we were working on putting together an international coalition to deal with the brutality ghadafi was visiting upon the nation and one year later we just

experienced a tremendously successful whirlwind trip by the prime minister of libya which resulted in a renewed commitment on both sides to pursue a new and close relationship, partnership with each other in every possible sphere. if you read the newspaper headlines in the last several weeks, you get a sense that libya is a country beset by militia fighting each other, tribalism, an economy in tatters, regional flareups etc., even there are issues and challenges here for sure if in acknowledges there of the mistakes in its public

communication and the way that it's preserved the issues of transparency but i but argue that one should also look on the positive things that have happened all over the past four months if use of the prime minister and any one of his many menus, you've seen a man who was serious, dedicated, committed to human rights to the democratic and his cabinet very much reflects his personality. the society is burgeoning, political parties are exploding all over the place and you can't go to nights in tripoli without being invited to launch a new political party. the election is proceeding apace. the u.n. has been working with the commission as an electoral law we insure there are many complications to overcome before that election does take place. but it is moving.

the liquidity crisis has eased. february 17th in which the one-year anniversary people are predicting dire explosions and elements running rampant in the streets and violence cast without a whimper basically happily families walking along the streets, hundreds of thousands of them and no celebratory gunfire. thank goodness. oil to clear all last year during the revolution which would never be up to the pre-war levels until several years is now up to 1.4 million barrels a day out of the level of 1.7. we hope to be back there during the summer and are even talking about going to million by the end of a year. the budget will understand was passed today. that will begin to give the ministry's the money they need

to make to their projects, and in terms of the commercial environment, up until the revolution there was 175 to $200 billion worth of contracts that were given out for the infrastructure from a through c. you name it and libya needed it. unfortunately it was done in a helter-skelter manner and right now the new government before it gives out any new contract is reviewing those contracts to make sure that they are rational and viable and not subject to the corruption that dominated the era. i would say to you that it's a great time to come to libya right now. i know the security situation is a little dicey for some of you. we live and work in libya, and i

can assure you that european companies are helping and that there is desire on the part of the government and the libyan people for the american products and goods as there was before and the prime minister told that specifically to the president, secretary of state and everybody else he met with. so, i think it is a good time for american business to come. you will be welcome, do want to contract the first day but you will begin to test alphacontact that you will need that will stand you in good stead as the country makes its march towards democracy. thank you. >> thank you, ambassador in cretz. i would now like to call on ambassador jeffery. ..

iraq is set if they can keep its political and security situation stable, to explode. it's got a per-capita income of about 31 or 3200, which is very very low even for, quite low compared to the rest of the region and even low compared to much of sub-saharan africa. on the other hand it's 140 billion barrels, probably 30 billion if not more in the kurdish area, plus huge tracts of the unexplored terrain west

of the country bring it up close to saudi arabia's 240 billion-dollar oil reserves and in addition iraq has unquestionably more natural gas so in terms of hydrocarbons, it can eventuallycome under line eventually compete with saudi arabia and over the next eight or nine years it has plans to increase oil exports up to a very optimistic 11 billion barrels a day. we think if they're lucky they will get up to eight or nine. nonetheless, they have an extraordinary process underway with 14 international oil companies to develop their southern fields. they have got tremendous potential in the west as i said in also in the north. many political issues related to all of this but nonetheless they are on the move or good gdp fueled by the increase of oil prices and increases in exports of 300 to 400,000 barrels next year is expanding in the double

digits. u.s. trade is expanding equally from 2010 to 2011, an increase of about 50% from the 1.6 billion to 2.4 billion, nothing like we we are doing in other countries but anytime we can do with 50% increase we are happy. the areas of concentration of u.s. success first of all the oil and gas sector. secondly, heavy equipment particularly electrical generation, to some degree chemicals, pharmaceuticals but in particular agricultural goods, defense obviously and information technology and telecommunications. also we are very proud to say automobiles. so there is a wide variety of american interested and as i said we are very happy to see that. we have again, many many

resources at our embassy, it's a very large embassy, that are committed to both working with the iraqi economic system and with the iraqi government to exploit its natural resources and develop its private sector but also to work with the american business community. now let me get to the 800-dollar question which is what about security, what about the political situation? iraq remains democratic rule of law and is under tremendous stress is as it has been since 2003. those of us who have been there repeatedly over the past eight years can attest to the fact that it's in much better shape now than it was six or seven years ago. nonetheless will security situation has improved dramatically, just in the 20 months i have been there, it still is an issue of concern for america as it should he and thus we have a very strong -- and work closely to ensure americans

stake and have been safe there. in terms of working with the iraqi government there two kinds of problems. first of all of the wholesale macro level, you have difficulties with the iraqi system funding large-scale infrastructure projects. the iraqis don't want to take out loans and they are there are some international legal emmett -- limitations on what they can do and this makes the process, the legislative decision for each project very cumbersome and a slowing down the development. we are working with him on that but that is the first constraint countries need to find models to fund infrastructure development and they're putting about one third of their hundred billion dollar budget into infrastructure so some of that or a large part of it close to the international community but nonetheless other creative models that the country has used. there is a real need for that in iraq.

at the retail micro level, operating in iraq is a daily challenge. from visas to finding communications to communicate with your government interlocutor. it is a very demanding environment that we are very supported embassy and we urged people to look at our web sites and arch people to consider the iraqi alternative. there's a huge market there. american products, as elsewhere in the middle east, are in demand. we are doing well and we are making the effort and i urge you to make the effort. thank you very much. >> thank you ambassador jeffrey. it's been a privilege to work with you so closely in iraq and thank you for the opportunity to do that. i would like to now call on representative patterson. >> thank you very much let me say i'm very pleased to say a few words to you today because i think economic engagement is going to be the key to our engagement in egypt because that is the area are new government

really coincides. there has been a huge transformation in the last year, two rounds of elections which i might say with unexpected results, 70 or 75% islamic parliament. the presidential elections begin in 10 weeks, another huge transformation underway. the next six weeks, the next six weeks are going to be very very dynamic and the next six months are going to be very unsettled. i want to talk about the short run and the long term because i think they're vastly different pictures. political uncertainty is going to coincide over the next few months with fairly sharp economic decline and i want to talk about some measures that are underway to reverse that. i think the long-term prospects for american business and all sorts of aspects are really quite promising. they're having a sharp drop in the foreign exchange reserves. inflation is up. the deficit has increased and

perhaps most relevant, business problems have soared because it's very difficult to get paid by the government. people are reluctant to make decisions. there has been some talk of privatization, but i think this will begin to settle down as the new government comes into office. there is a lot of caution on the part of -- particularly in the gulf and for my own observations there are americans doing business in egypt and had been blessed with some of these problems than those from other countries. the good news is that the imf is getting ready to go into egypt. i think egypt will be able to raise a substantial amount of foreign exchange is required for our stabilization program and momentum should begin to turn around very quickly on the economy. i talk a lot about a citibank report that indicated egypt

could be one of the top 10 economies in the world and the next generation and for my own observation, i think that is probably true. we are just going to have a very difficult period over the next few months. the long-term indicators are good. in 2007 egypt had over $10 billion in direct american investment and is down to about 1 billion this year but i think it will recover. the new government and this i think is very important, has reached out to us repeatedly to make reassurances about their commitment to free markets and their commitment to a level playing field with american and other foreign investors. they have a market orientation, and they have been careful to reassure us on issues of corruption and this will be one of the first issues that they are going to tackle. there is a very strong domestic business community in egypt. they have been a little shell-shocked by what has happened but i think they will

recover and play the role that they have always played. very strong existing business community for those of you are -- that are looking for partners. we see large opportunities over the next few years. telecommunications is obviously the penetration still low and 40,000 persons work out of cairo so there is an infrastructure to build on in the telecommunications industry. we anticipate that electric power generation will be another area of substantial growth and infrastructure. the infrastructure in egypt is very seriously deteriorated and the new government has made every indication they're going to invest heavily in infrastructure. there will be some sort of substance about the structure like rail if they modify the subsidy. it will become vastly more attractive as a long-term investment. this will work wire n. will

require engineering services. it will require construction and the transport equipment but again i think it provides good services to american business and we are very eager to help you in these areas and please get in touch with us because we think there is a lot of long-term opportunity there a cousin of the underlying demographics and the strength of the business community. thank you. >> thank you ms. patterson. i just want to say how, just with regard to the presentations now particularly iraq and libya, certainly how appreciative we are as americans of your being there and the incredible service and dedication required to do your jobs and if we don't get an opportunity later, on behalf of all of us in this room we would like to thank you for your service to the united states.

[applause] i would now like to call ambassador krajewski of at the u.s. embassy bahrain. >> thank you very much and thank you for being here. it is an honor to be here with such distinguished colleagues and our jobs are much more difficult than mine are in bahrain. if any country might deserve a do-over of the events of last year it would be bahrain. if you look at the situation before february of last year, bahrain was a bottle of stability and prosperity. it was a great place to do business. they had succeeded in two diversifying their economy beyond petrochemicals building diversified manufacturing banking financial services sectors and creating a moderately vibrant middle and working class. in 2010 by rain was ranked 33 of

183 countries on the world tanks ease of doing business index indicated that they regulatory environment that was conducive to investment into business development. between 2002 and 2010 by rain succeeded in tripling its banking and financial services affecting to more than $225 billion in attracting 152 offshore banking units and representative offices including many american businesses. in 2006 it negotiated a free-trade agreement with bahrain, one of the few such agreements in the middle east region and sense 2006 the volume of bilateral trade has risen slowly but steadily. but, political and security realities have eclipsed my focus on business and the economy in bahrain. the recent civil unrest continuing unrest has weakened

bahrain's economy and presented with a series of challenges that are profound. today it faces a drop in tourism revenue, particularly among saudi visitors. businesses are leaving rather than coming to the country. lost investment opportunities driven by a perception that unrest has affected the business climate, the credit downgrade of the bahraini bond and a cancellation the cancellation of major revenue-generating offense, particularly last year the formula one race. if they don't, if they don't reach a political resolution this climate will continue to stagnate and causing rising unemployment in even deeper economic divide in the country. unemployment, under employment, economic hardship are the future without a political resolution.

while the reasons for the recent unrest are complex, they need economic growth in order to address some of these grievances. nonetheless, as -- said we are all officers and i'm optimistic about the government of bahrain and about bahrain's ability to overcome the challenges that confront and realize his potential again. we are working with bahrainis in all segments of society to seize that opportunity. we are advising several steps to continue diversification away from petrochemicals, using the free trade agreement to promote bilateral trade volume and increased participation in the economy from all segments of society. implementation of political and security sector reform will address many of the root causes

of this unrest. finally, i would want to underscore that the dramatic transitional period in bahrain. their important assessment opportunities out there for you and i would repeat i am confident and optimistic that the government of a rain knows what it has to do and is in the process of doing it and will succeed in establishing greater stability both political and social, which will enable economic investments to return. thank you. >> thank you. our final speaker on the panel is ambassador ensher from algeria. >> thank you very much. the thing to do is to start with a little good news/bad news. the good news is that algeria reminds me a great deal of my home state of california. the potential is vast and in

fact it's a mediterranean climate like much of california. it's about the same size, population. it's a larger country and also has a highly educated and diverse population. it also has effective security forces and a lot of money in the bank, somewhere between $180 billion in $200 billion in the bank and that is in cash and a demonstrated willingness to suspend it. so that is on the good news side from a business perspective. the bad news side is that much about jerry and economic macrocanonic policies seem deliberately designed to thwart the fulfillment of that potential. there is movement. there is progress. there has been an increasing number of foreign companies coming into algeria outside of the traditional hydrocarbon sector. that includes increased american interest and one can certainly see a huge potential in for

example the pharmaceutical areas. i would point to ongoing defense articles, high and defense articles of various sorts including those used for surveillance and recognizance of various types. there's a particular ongoing issue having to do with a conflict of u.s. law without jerry and concern for sovereignty that remains a significant issue that again we are working here and i see signs of progress there. finally maybe just because i'm from california, i would cite the potential for agribusiness as well. so with a lot of money to be made in algeria and not to sound too much like one part of the u.s. political sector of the government would just get out of the way little bit, things i think would then rapidly improve. when we think about ways to do business in algeria, the areas where there is the most potentially tend to think about sort of a three-part van

diagram. this would be an area in which the algerian people really want whatever it is. the government is willing and seized strong views to do whatever that is in we the united states are really good, almost uniquely good, that thing and so that is where you get into areas like pharmaceuticals, agribusiness and communications of various sorts. so, those are the three major areas of attentional and the major issues. when we decide how to spend her time at the embassy we focus on security cooperation, which is broad and growing in both directions i would say. it will be increasingly important for algeria to play a regional leadership role in addressing the growing security threats posed by a confluence of events including defense, i will use that word, events in libya

and the potential for the development of an al qaeda sanctuary particularly in northern mali. this is an area that will require algerian leadership because it's a country that does pose to act in that area if necessary and with the support of the u.s. and other foreign partners. we are interested in expanding commercial relations outside of the hydrocarbon area while maintaining a privileged and historic position in hydrocarbon and finally we are there to reach out to civil society, both because that is a policy objective on its own where we support democratization and human rights all over the world, but also because there is continued significant change in algeria and we want to make sure we have friends throughout the society so we are very aggressive in broadening our contacts throughout the algerian civil society. and then finally i'll just mention the fact of the couple

of election cycles coming up, first on the parliament. there's a huge diversity of parties and we would expect such elections which will be heavily served by the international community and by algerians to be free and fair and to produce a result reflecting the new political realities in the region, to put it that way. then there is perhaps even more important local elections in the fall with control over algerian communities and municipalities. i will stop there except to say that anything i have said wrong, ambassador will clean up afterwards. >> thank you. we have got several questions. if i could just began begin to plow into those. unfortunately i are our strict schedule we have all the 15 minutes, so i am going to hopefully able to do that timing

a little bit to the great detriment of the panel too. okay, okay. i would like to start some of our questioning if i could. ambassador cretz do you think libya must await national elections before it really cranks up and is there an effort now being made by the national council to reform the antiquated legal structure for doing business? >> i don't think business need wait for the elections. the process will be on june 21 hopefully. they will be an election for 200 people who will be tasked with two tasks. one is to write the constitution and also to choose the next transitional temporary government with ap reid of one more year. so, you know, you can keep saying let's wait until then, let's wait until that point or

that point. i think now really is the time to come to libya for business because even if the top names change, the people who are going to be dealing with contracts and economy and commercial ventures will be part of the political and economic fabric of libya for years to come. so i don't think there's any purpose served by waiting until the elections, because the fluidity of the situation could be very similar to what it is right now. the point is, you must come and establish yourself, make contacts that will stand you in good standing for the years to come. like i said the government issued no is in a position right now to award a contract for several reasons, but they -- you are in a position to make contact with the people who will be making those decisions as the days and weeks go by.

>> the second part of the question was, are there efforts underway or reform for a legal structure of the old regime? >> there is somewhat antiquated legal structure of the old claim. is there some serious effort -- >> the are reviewing all the different laws from the gadhafi and and those that are appropriate will stay and those that need to go will go. i will tell you that in terms of transparency and in terms of getting rid of the endemic corruption that so characterized the gadhafi years, this government is very committed to doing that, creating a new environment for business to come. that doesn't mean the entire system, the characterization of the gadhafi years will become but one of the reasons i might add that the government has been so reluctant to start new projects and to give out new contracts is because they are so

keenly aware of the eyes that are upon them with respect to corruption and so they are being very meticulous, almost to the point of inefficiency, so as not to be tainted with any kind -- painted with any kind of brush and the corruption being. >> thank you ambassador. ambassador jeffrey as you know our chamber has supported your efforts to get more u.s. business, to get more business investment in iraq. their problems remain as you indicated. is the maliki government serious about making the reformers required to attract and maintain foreign investment? that is the whole process. you mentioned finance in particular is a problem particularly on certain projects that a lot of americans business, also entry-level problems, getting permits, getting registered, some problem

with corruption etc.. is their focus on that currently in the government? >> here's the problem with government. even a not particularly well organized little government like the ire greg government is a mirror image. akin tell you somewhere within three or four miles of us there is a federal bureaucrat who is worried about every single issue in the world and is focused on it. whether he or she will achieve anything is another question here in washington and also in baghdad so they are focused on these things because we tell them and other people tell them and the imf tells them. the formal answer to what you said would he either they were commissions and special envoys and people who would set out to look at this but the real answer they will say is hey, lots of people are coming in, turkey, iran, the e.u.. as i said in certain sectors the

americans. their figure out ways to work through the oceans of iraq recede and the red tape and taking a profit here. that fact is true. nonetheless it is our job as the american embassy to try to streamline these procedures to the extent we can with the iraqi government in some areas such as visas. we have made some progress in the last three or four months but it's a very tough process. working in iraq is not easy, okay. trust me. somebody who works in iraq. but also i think many thousands of people as you read about in the newspapers from the famous american mission would say, it's a profitable and enjoyable undertaking because iraq does want as much american involvement as possible. one of the ways that we are trying to deal with the

political issues i cited earlier ambassador pickering also listed, is to try to encourage a sort of business involvement and engagement and it is tough. on the other hand, there is much money to be made and they're a good long-term contracts to be made in our assumption is it's not a completely certain assumption that a pretty good one, that iraq will remain the unified relatively stable country and will improve security and will grow thanks if nothing else to the increased oil exports. so, come on in. thank you. >> thank you ambassador jeffrey. ambassador patterson can you give us some insight into presidential election of coming in egypt that will likely would occur in me. will the president possibly lineup and some kind of alliance with the military vis-à-vis the new parliament? is that an option?

>> i think the last i saw from the embassy is that hundreds of people had decided to run for president in egypt which is a reflection of the new democracy they're probably a half-dozen serious competitors. let me say that you never -- never predict elections but -- was leading in all the polls, american poles, czechs and poles and other polls and is probably still leading. these are the same polls i might add that were astonishingly mistaken about the south because there wasn't a single pull the predicted they were going to show above 5% and they got 22% so you can't rely on polls. the demographics of egypt are not very good. so i think, think it's really an open question and who is going to win the presidential right

has began to heat up and promises to be very interesting and i think we might be surprised. we might he surprised. we will just see how it plays out. the military, you know, i think the military is going to play a prominent role for years to come in egypt and in many other countries from latin america to turkey. it well take a long time to disentangle the military from public life again, as it has all over the world. but i have been reassured by the military initial relationships with the parliament, noisy at times but has an truly successful so far. >> ambassador patterson. >> i have a question for ambassador krajewski. what is the status of arena's a banking center or as financial

services? is there still investment inflow in that area and one in particular would you advise for u.s. business at this point? >> most certainly bahrain remains one of the strongest centers of banking and financial services in the gulf. despite the unrest of last year and perhaps even more the impact of the economic crisis in 2008 and competition from the other cities in the gulf, most particularly dubai. they still remain a very attractive place for banking, for an angel services and we see in inflow of those companies along with outflow from some of the banks. a couple of banks have moved as i said. some of the major banks have established offices in other cities. most have offices in other cities in the gulf and also

quite frankly a fallback position should the situation in bahrain deteriorate again. i do believe it's one of their strongest sectors and it will be four years to calm, assuming as i am doing today, they did find a way forward on the political side. >> unfortunately, i am getting the high sign that we are behind schedule so we are unfortunately going to have to wrap up the q&a for this panel. i want to thank you again for being here. just extraordinarily informative. thank you again for your service to the united states, and hope to see you soon in your countries and you are always welcome here at the national u.s. arab chambers. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to have three quick photographs with the

ambassadors and our sponsors so if i could just keep you guys here. >> if there's anything that concerns the american family today, it's this. our government hasn't caught up with the new fact of american family -- families have changed, so why can't washington? nearly 65% of all mothers are working. part-time, full-time, all of the time. keeping the family together, making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable daycare and the pay they deserve. too often, they can't get either.

>> our ancestors came across the ocean and sailing ships he wouldn't go across the lake in. when they arrived there was nothing here. they built their tiny little cabins and they did it with neighbors helping one another, not federal grants. >> this is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas, to the rebuilding of our own nation. and america must be restored to her proper role in the world.

but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves.

>> josh gordon is the director of the coalition research on the federally funded health care policy tax policy and is editor of the concord tabulation. you have been with them for, since 2001. topic is this new number on the deficit, the congressional budget came out yesterday with this headline, $1.2 trillion. they have raised it from $93 billion. why? >> guest: mainly because of the payroll tax cut that was reenacted in december. >> host: extended for the rest of the year? so that added how much do the deficit? >> guest: it adds, i mean around 90 to $100 billion in the first year but over 10 years

actually they paid for a lot of the other tax cuts so it cost a little bit less after the total 10 years are it. >> host: jobless benefits? >> guest: they extended them and paid for them over the ten-year period as well. >> host: what was this erpa said the cbo report yesterday? >> guest: the real purpose is in march, they update just their baseline estimate to take into account changes in legislation as the house budget committee gets ready to prepare their budget and also normally they do it directly in conjunction with their analysis of the president's budget, separated by a few days and the president's budget announcement should be out in a few days so it gives a good baseline which to measure the presidents president's proposed policies in the budget committees in the congress as well for the same reason. >> host: house republicans are still putting together their budget. there is some internal debate about what the baseline should be and spending caps etc..

how do you think this report from cbo will impact that? >> guest: really the impact is more the starting line gun being fired so now they really can go ahead. most of the work is done behind the scenes now that they have the cbo baselines and they will have the announcement for the president's budget. they will feel the show their preferred policy and how that separates what the president proposed. >> host: the impact of this on defense cuts, the upcoming sequestration, those automatic spending cuts across the board. what you think the impact of the cbo's report will be? >> guest: again i think a ways out the baseline and if congress is serious and i know some members are serious about cutting, not having the trigger go into effect in not having the defense cuts going into effect. this is the budgetary reality they will have to be faced with. you have very large deficits. if you don't want to cut defense spending than it is going to be up to you to show what you will

cut in his place. >> host: the cost of health care. what did the cbo say? >> guest: the report was interesting because there were actually a lot of -- among the legislation and yet the total 10 year score changed very little, about $40 billion difference over 10 years. but within that, there were some interesting things about how much more medicare, i mean medicaid is going to cost primarily because of the extent and duration of the recession and it will push a lot more people onto medicaid for the health care. >> host: let's talk more about that but first democrats to 202-73-7003, and independence to (202)628-0205. we want to get your comments here on the 2012 deficit to reach $1.2 trillion. let's talk a little bit more. what was interesting about that? >> guest: of the medicare cuts actually stay about the same during the 10 years but one

interesting thing is you have had a slow down in health care spending over the last two or three years. something that people would not have predicted iver six years ago and there is a debate about how much because of the recession is causing people to forgo health care spending and how much is from fundamental restructuring that is already happening in the health care world. really before those affordable care act comes on line. >> host: this is the reaction from that house ways & means chairman dave camp out of michigan. he says for the democrats health care bill signed into law the cbo estimate it would increase spending on medicaid attacks on health insurance subsidies by $938 billion between 2010 and 2019 however is republicans repeated pointed out the true cost of the health care law is the medicaid expansion of health insurance exchange subsidies are not scheduled to begin until 2014. the cbo released updated information which predicts the democrats health care overhaul will actually cost barely

$1.8 billion between 2012 and 2022. >> guest: well, really the arguments there are simply about math and timing. >> host: what do you mean? >> guest: the legislation that started coming on line in 2014, the the 10 years gore is going to be lower than once you start adding some more years on the backend for the health care legislation is in effect. overall i think the cbo really has said there is going to be very little difference between the deficit caused of now versus when it was enacted and it does according to cbo lower the deficit over 10 years and even more deficit reduction in the future. >> host: . >> host: let's go to michael publican in tulsa oklahoma. go ahead. >> caller: i want to know why the congress and the senators and the president, how come they haven't made -- should they do that or should they not?

>> host: we both miss that. can you repeat what you said? >> caller: why haven't the members and commerce people and the president of the united states of america and everybody representing america, why haven't they made -- in every state to cover up this 10 trillion-dollar deficit? what is your point of view? should they do that? >> host: do you mean should they create money in every state? >> caller: yes, mince. >> guest: i'm not sure how to answer that question. i think there is, we should think of things like renting money and monetary policy and separate from federal budgetary resources. i think our monetary policy is really dependent on the federal reserve and financial flows and this deficit and what we are talking about really is something we control here domestically. >> host: is it merely a

coincidence that 1.2 chilling is precisely the same amount as the congressional debt committee was supposed to cut in november? >> guest: yes. >> host: the supercommittee. >> guest: >> guest: that is a coincidence but one of the interesting things, when you look at plans going forward, there is all this talk about, especially on the campaign trail about large tax cuts and about paying for them and really, we need to think of orders of magnitude, very large proposals for tax cuts and spending cuts and when you look at the supercommittee failing over 10 years to save $1.2 trillion, the idea that they are going to be able to cut four or $5 trillion in just a few years i think, we should have a reality check about how hard it was her congress to do that little let alone some of these larger cuts being proposed over the short-term. >> host: john jonah north carolina tweets in this comment.

in an entitlement society fiscal responsibility does not compute. how he and independence also oklahoma, good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? >> host: what is sure, the question? >> caller: my question is, you have got a lot of candidates for office and need to institute entitlement reform. some of the biggest our social security and medicare but we don't hear anything from any of the candidates, talking about reining in the great distribution of wealth that is going from the young to the old in this country and i guess my question is, how much of that $1.2 trillion deficit is the result of failing to means test social security or her make senior citizens pay you know,

market value for medicare benefits that they receive? >> guest: i think the real trick isn't even to look over the short-term but over the long-term and there it's clear that social care security medicare and medicaid are the three programs that are projected to grow much more quickly than the economy over the next 10 years and then even you know more over the next 2k decade toward three decades. really the idea of the distribution from young to old is simply, are these program structure the way we want them for the future, not for the past? how can we restructure them to take into account what we know now about life expectancy and health health health care inflation and then if we are satisfied that we reform that, then the key is simply to raise taxes high enough to pay for that so that we are not adding to the national debt. so i think we need to decide in

society while we want for our retirement programs and then we have to pay for them. >> host: yesterday the cbo called it a short-term report? >> guest: it went just beyond 10 years. 20 or 30 years down the road i think that the real interesting thing about the cbo report for the last two years is they do what is called an alternative scenario where they show you where their baseline would take you if congress and the president just left washington and didn't pass any more legislation and there over 10 years the deficit looks pretty darned good, down to about 1% of gdp by the end of the tenure time period. the problem is there are a lot of assumptions that go into that like the tax cuts will expire, the medicare doc fix will not happen and doctor payments will be cut by 30% a bunch of other things that cbo is forced to put on paper but they have this alternative scenario where you just look at the current policy trajectory and 100% of gdp over

10 years up to 250% of gdp over 30 years and that is really where you get into some economic problems. that is why we are so concerned about the fiscal future. >> host: donna republican and southern pines south carolina. >> caller: good morning, greta. i listen to you every morning. the man from north carolina kind of asked my question but i want to ask another question. i was listening to the british comments, they're having a thing about health care on your other c-span. i think it c-span3. but anyway, i have already got my medicare cut. day cut it last year. i had to pay $24 more, asked her for my prescriptions and i only live on a 600-dollar month

income. i want to ask the gentlemen, is there any more help for seniors like us out there? you all have a blessed day. thank you. >> guest: i mean, you think the key going forward with medicare is how do you not drastically cut benefits for important medical care and making the system more efficient? it's clear to almost everyone that not just medicare but our entire health care system is incredibly inefficient so as we figure out ways to get more value for our health care dollars, that should help seniors, should help as this is, should help the entire economy because right now there is a huge amount of wasted health care so if you're able to get rid of that waste and put that money towards more productive resources, we should have as good if not better health and a lot more budgetary resources. >> host: mike freeman has this to be. really needs to get the stepping in a proper light and a viable

future of fostering economic growth is more important and effective than austerity. >> guest: i think over the short-term that is direct. over the short term meaning the next year or two, we should be focused on economic recovery and ensuring that is sustainable and then over the long term though, the economy will be severely limited in its birth potential of we don't get fiscal responsibility because as you keep growing your debt, it crowds out other spending and really hampers living standards so over the short-term you are correct. the short-term austerity doesn't make much sense until we are out of the woods with the economy but over the long term you will only have economic growth the way we wanted if we also are fiscally responsible. >> host: the cbo report reflects deficits. explained the difference between debt and deficit. >> guest: debt is the animal

difference between what we spend his cash is a government and will be taken as cash and if you have a ball of our past deficits, that basically is our debt. >> host: los angeles, dependent caller. >> caller: good morning. i would just like to revert back to medicare for a second. i have paid for medicare since its inception in 1964. i paid for it in social security and my employers for paid for social security since 1965 in those are contributions i have made. in the last two years my social security has been frozen and because of that, i dropped out of medicare. it's very simple. increase my monthly and, about 130 bucks a month. i have never used it yet i'm paying into it and i paid into it for years. for someone that good to figure out a way to simply cut the entire budget 10% i think would be a great help.

i would like your comment and i want to thank the gentleman for his comments. if he can get that information to washington and get them to listen. we all would be a lot better off than i want to thank the young lady for your time and your patients. some of your callers being absolutely crazy. >> guest: well, take a things. the thing about washington is that they know the math, they know where the problems lie in the future. is really a question of getting the political will in the political coalition together to actually pass these pretty dramatic changes to taxes or spending programs and on medicare specifically, i think certainly all areas of the budget need to be looked at were scrutiny going forward. when you look at the projections for dead, including the tax code

and again, we really need to reform medicare and really get a handle on health care over all so that seniors and everyone else can afford the health care. >> host: americans have got to get away from calling social security and medicare entitlements. most americans pay for this through payroll taxes. >> guest: well, in the medicare is a good example of how that is actually not the case. medicare payroll only pays for part a which is the hospital insurance part of medicare and even then, the amount of taxes coming in aren't going to be enough to support benefits going forward. then you also have medicare part a and part d the prescription drug etiquette and those are financed through premiums and then a huge amount of general revenue goes into those programs. so the idea that we have completely paid for all of these programs is untrue. that doesn't mean there is something wrong with how the system is financed.

as long as you are raising enough money somehow to pay for the benefits going forward. >> host: we are talking about the headline from cbo's latest report on the deficit. here is "the hill" newspaper. budges scorekeepers this deficit is $93 billion larger than expected. we will go to marion, a republican in d.c.. go ahead. >> caller: hi, good morning and thank you for taking my call. i'm so glad that i was able to get him because i think what i have to say is relevant to the topic of the deficit and entitlement. i am an immigrant by the way and i certainly hope that lawmakers are listening to this. there are people across the country that never really contributed to social security or medicare and they come to this country and they really don't have to work anymore.

i sometimes wonder how is that impacting the people out there? >> host: josh gordon, do you know? >> guest: i don't know the specific numbers but the interesting thing, if you look in the past, immigration has tended to increase the amount of younger employed workers in the country as opposed to older workers, coming here to retire and in going forward one of the real challenges we have is that our population is aging and many -- mackerel be more people leaving the workforce and drawing on these programs then there will be people in the workforce to support them through taxes. immigration policy going forward is one of the ways you can keep young people coming into the workforce by allowing immigration for skilled workers and really any workers who are not yet retired. that is one of the ways to get that ratio or favorable in the long-term.

>> host: jim hines as we said earlier about short-term spending and debt reduction has been set for 40 plus years he said. >> guest: that might be true, but i think in this case, when we are having the largest economic downturn since the great depression, in that scenario when the federal reserve is pretty much out of policy, really the only answer to help get the economy back on track is to allow the deficit over the short-term and then to hopefully pair that with some reform of these long-term programs so that our long term trajectory is more responsible, which frees up even more flexibility for us in the short-term to have fiscal stimulus and to allow deficits. >> host: in another tweet for you from maverick, have you evaluated a single-payer system scenario and the cost of that? >> guest: there are ways to have a single-payer system that is more expensive than our

current system and there are ways to have it where it's more efficient and cost less. i think the real key is when you look at the numbers, if we wait 20 or 30 years to do dramatic changes we are going to be in trouble. so the question is, can you enact a single-payer system over a very short amount of time that can immediately start bringing down health care spending? i think allegedly it seems like that will be very difficult. so a better option i think is to work within the programs we have now to build on the affordable care act and try and reform these programs as quickly as we can. many times, health care reformers in going to -- legislation because we don't know exactly how to control health care costs of the real key over the long-term is to keep coming back to health care reform that we can ensure the health care inflation. >> host: mark is watching in ohio, democratic caller. good morning to you, mark.

>> caller: good morning. i am calling in regards to why the republican politicians in washington referred to social security as an entitlement program when it's self-supporting. they also claim that 65% of the national deficit now is for social security. >> host: josh gordon? >> guest: i'm not sure about the last figure. i think one of the things that gets confusing is when people look at the deficit in say a portion of that deficit is because of this program or because of war spending or because of tax cuts. in the deficit is simply the math between what we are spending and what we are taking and and you can blame that on pretty much any program that could be adding to the deficit or not be adding to the deficit because really it's just a mathematical cash equation. a lot of callers have been explaining the word entitlement and i think one of the things is

that what we call things maybe have some political effect but in terms of where the programs are going and what they do, it really doesn't matter what we call them. i do think there is a misconception that all of social security and all of medicare have already been paid for through payroll taxes. that is not the case. in fact, workers over the last 40 years have gotten a very good deal in terms of what they have spent for medicare and social security and the benefits that they ever see. >> host: one last phonecall comes from texas, dan a republican. >> caller: good morning everyone. i think that we are allowing our political correct is to cut our own fiscal throat. it seems to me that if you look at it, and oftentimes these numbers are hidden from us, medicare isn't the problem. medicaid by far is the problem. we have millions of anchor

babies mooching off the medicaid system and our political correctness keeps us from addressing the issue. >> host: let's talk about the issue and its impact on the budget. >> guest: i mean, i think if you just look at the numbers over the next 30 years, medicare is projected to grow more quickly and that really is just a mathematical issue that there will be more medicare beneficiaries and medicaid actually cost less per person than medicare does. also because medicaid stays -- more than medicare does but those programs are impacted more dramatically by overall health care inflation than they are anything else so it's hard to really separate those two programs from each other and from the overall health care system. >> josh gordon with the concord coalition, thank you sir for your time. >> guest: you're welcome. >> it conference

..