the relationship between the press and celebrities, politicians and the police. more than 250 witnesses have testified before the inquiry including harry potter author j.k. rowling, actor hugh grant and james and rupert murdoch. again, live coverage of the leveson inquiry expected in just a moment with testimony from andy coulson, former prime minister david cameron's communication director. ..

>> [no sound]

>> [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] >> so this afternoon's witness is mr. coulson. >> thank you.

>> your full name please, mr. coulson. >> andrew coulson. >> please turn up your witness statement which is dated may of this year. look at the last paragraph, and underneath it you will see a signature which is yours, statements of truth. the statement of truth is given within the constraints imposed on you by the ongoing police investigation, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> first of all, in terms, short timeline of your career, you start working as a journalist in 1989, is that correct? >> yes. >> between 1994-1998 you edited the column at -- is that right? >> yes.

>> in the year 2000, you are deputy editor of the "news of the world" under rebekah wade, as she then was, is that correct? >> yes. >> january 2003 you were appointed editor of the world to the 26th of january 2007 you resigned. around june 2007, you were appointed director of communications to the conservative party, is that right? >> yes. >> you started work i think on the night of july 2007, and after the last general election i think on the 12th of may 2010, you were appointed director of communications at downing street, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you resigned as director of communications on the 26th of january, 2011. can ask you this general

question first of all, mr. coulson. there were reports about you have been keeping a personal diary of alexander campbell, which might be a contemporaneous record between july '07 and january 2011, is that correct or not? [inaudible] >> in terms of how your witness statement has been prepared you've had to rely on your memory, self evidently. are there any other documents you have access to which might have assisted? >> there's some notes that i would take, the course of my work. both from opposition and from government. >> so these are computer records, are they? >> no, not books spent have you had access to those notebooks when you take your statement or not? >> yes. >> you have been arrested in connection with operation

weeping. sal not asking questions on those matters, do you understand? i ask you some background questions. it's clear from the statement that you were or perhaps our close friends of rebekah brooks, is that right? >> yes. we haven't spoken for a while. >> ask you about the frequency of your interaction, particularly after july 2007, about how often did you speak to her? >> it would depend. i think i scheduled meetings with matt, social meetings that we had, but we would talk now and then. i wouldn't say even that we spoke every week. there were times when we didn't speak for quite some time. but it was i would say that we spoke over, over that period of time, regularly i think is the word i would use. >> did you communicate by text message with her? >> occasion. >> by e-mail?

>> occasionally. >> and then -- [inaudible] , is that right? >> yes. >> wouldn't be fair to say that you knew what each other's respective political standpoints were? >> she knew i worked for the conservatives so that was pretty clear. as to her political allegiances, you know, in terms of her period of editorship at "the sun," she was supportive of the right labour party. she was also chief executive when "the sun" change its allegiance to the conservative party. as to her personal views, or personally believes them how she voted i have no idea. >> you have any insight into her personal political beliefs or not? >> not beyond the odd conversation we have had. i guess the question is, if i might be so bold, how did she vote, i have no idea. >> was she someone who you felt

was close to certain politicia politicians? >> yes. i think the course of her work she was close to politicians. >> we'll come to that in a moment. when you took over as editor of the "news of the world" in 2003, which aspects of the culture there, if any, did you want to change? >> i don't remember i wanted to change any of the cultural aspects. the name changed it instigated on becoming editor was a cosmetic one. i wanted to redesign the paper. >> you worked at both papers, "the sun" and the "news of the world." are there any differences in the culture of those two papers or not in your view of? >> in so much as one is a daily paper, so the pace of the paper is very different. the atmosphere is different to a degree, certainly on certain dates of the week. if you try to find a comparison between the "news of the world," the newt -- that's the you are

producing the newspaper. >> your dealings with mr. rupert murdoch as editor, looking at a period of 2003-2007, about how often would you speak with the editor, do you think? >> i can't put a number on it but he would usually call on a saturday night, sometimes it would be made a couple times in a month. sometimes you might go a couple months without hearing from them. so it was, i think i would describe it as a regular, and almost always, irregular. always a saturday phone call. aside from the occasional news international when he was in london, or when i would go to new york or london with all the other editors for budget discussions. [inaudible] what in particular was it a?

>> in terms of the specific content i don't have any conversations with him and initially about a particular part of the paper. we did talk about sports pages. the company had made a big investment in expanding the size of the sports pages, sports coverage of the "news of the world." and that was a fundamentally important part of a commercial mix of the paper. we, i'm sure we discussed that and we discussed politics generally, and he would give me his view on what ever was in the news at the time may be. >> we know mr. murdoch was interest in football because he tried to buy united. he wasn't interested in scoops and frontpage is? >> in these conversations i might tell him if we had a good story, what we are planning to run that night, but not always welby any measure. >> wasn't interested in stories

might impact on the success, the circulation figures of the newspaper? >> in so much as sport was a good example. i mean, in terms of driving "news of the world," you know, the sport was crucial. it also had a massive impact on sort of the physical production of the paper. so that was, i certainly remember having that conversation. news international invest in some very expensive presses during my time as editor, and i had real concerns that those prices, although are successful in some regards, would impact on the production of the paper, particularly the sports coverage. he wouldn't get the right teams coach into the right area, for example. i certainly remember discussing that. >> you bring in the conversation quite round neutral topics such as sports. duty as she questions directly about circulation figures? >> he may well have done, yeah.

>> and during the sporadic telephone calls, usually from new york presumably, on a saturday, did he ask you, well, how is the circulation going? >> not always, no. >> but often? >> i certainly do remember a occasions when he did but it wasn't, i wouldn't want to characterize as the main purpose of the goal. it's quite often he wouldn't even mention it. >> both you and he were unaware of sort of factors that might impinge on the circulation figures of the paper, is that correct? >> yes. my job as editor was to produce a successful newspaper. >> when you said you discuss the political issues of the day, where these quite general discussions about issues such as europe, european referendum, or whatever it might be? >> yes. i mean, europe wasn't at big issue for "news of the world" perhaps like some.

>> did he discuss the politicians of the day at how well they were doing in your eyes is? >> on occasion, yes or. >> did you have a sense that he wanted to find out how political opinion in this country was moving? >> i don't recall the sort of specific conversation in that way. >> but in general, mr. coulson, i'm not asking you to identify a moment or a particular conversation. but in general did you have any sense of that? >> i might well in the course of the conversation offer a few. normally relate to a particular issue rather than the sort of longer-term picture. >> during this period, 2003-2007, were you particularly interested in politics or not? >> yes. >> and although your paper may not have adopted its position, your own personal position throughout has been pro-conservative, is in its? >> we supported labour under my

leadership of the "news of the world." >> your own personal? >> how i voted. >> i'm not seeking to be so personal as to ask you what did you go. i just want to seek your general perspective. generally speaking conservative, is that right? >> yes. [inaudible] but i am, yes, i think that's fair to say. >> do you feel it was part of your job as editor, perhaps in any event, to assess the political mood of the country and in particular how the country was likely to vote in the next general election? >> i did my job as editor was, as best i could, to establish whether "news of the world" readership was, in terms of politics and certain issues. >> to lead or follow? >> trying to reflect, sir. >> so in that sense, to follow?

>> yes. i think more follow than lead, i would say. there were some issues, as an editor, you would want to champion and, therefore, i think probably aim to lead opinion. but i think generally speaking, a successful newspaper is one that is in tune with its readership. >> so there's something she can't get them to do but there's something she could get them to do, if the course is right, politicians or other reader? >> no, i don't even get readers to do anything. i then tried to buy the paper. >> all right, all right. you have to have an understanding of where they are so that when you decide that you do want to promote a particular cause to go into leadership mode, that it is sufficiently in tune with where you know they

are, that it doesn't cause you trouble is? >> yes. you wanted to to be online as much as possible. >> that's what i is trying to get at. the exercise tends to be unscientific. you have a very large readership, 3 million people are buying the paper, obviously a whole range of opinion within that readership, is that right? >> that's right. >> do you take opinion polls, on a rudimentary basis, of what you're readership would likely devote? >> pretty rudimentary. some market research i occasionally get access to. >> would you describe your overall relationship with mr. murdoch as being worn or something different? >> i was an employee and i thoroughly enjoyed my time working for him. and so the interactions i had with them, yes, he was warm and supportive. >> so warm towards you and vice versa, is that it's? >> i wasn't particularly close to him in that regard.

i wouldn't overstate it. he was supportive to me as an editor, and i enjoyed working in his company. >> the rumor is you turn down the editorship of the "daily mirror" upon the resignation of mr. moore gone. if he did, that might reflect on your loyalty to mr. murdoch, but did you? >> there were conversations towards the possibility of me becoming the editor of the "daily mirror." i chose not to do so. >> the one general election which came in your watch as it were from 2005 election, the same paragraph 40 at the statement, in the end you decided to continue the paper support of tony blair. why in the end? >> well, it was sort of a long process really. i had a range of meetings in the lead up to the election, the conference, outsider conference and i overtime together with my team at the "news of the world"

decided in the end that we would continue to support tony blair. >> did you believe that he would probably win that election? >> well, it wasn't the key factor in the decision to the key factor in the decision, as i touched on earlier, once i felt the "news of the world" readers best interests would be best served by tony blair. but if you read the leader of the time, i think it was, i don't think it was wildly enthusiastic. but i think on balance we felt that that was the best way to go. >> would you say he reflected the mood of the country of the time i suspected? >> possibly. >> did you take advice about who might win that election? >> no. >> from your political -- >> sorry. in terms of advice, we had some

sort of pretty detailed conversations about it. and that would certainly involve the political staff. i was keen also to involve members of staff who didn't work in politics, who didn't understand westminster, who worked interest in that world. so i think we worked in different departments in the magazine and features and what have you. >> did you have discussions with rebekah wade about it is? >> no, i don't think so. in terms of editorship of "the sun," and the editorship of the "news of the world," they are separate, or they were, separate papers. and it was sort of a clear line drawn between the two. there was a rivalry also actually. between the two. and so i wouldn't have had, i don't think it, i certainly don't remember any conversations with rebekah about that issue spent so "the sun"'s endorsement of the labour party would have been a surprise to you then, we? >> i don't know if it's a surprise. i survey didn't make any part in

the discussion spent did you have any discussion with mr. rubert murdoch about endorsing? >> i don't know. but i don't remember anyway. >> wouldn't you though what to find out whether what you were doing was contrary to his viewpoint? >> i didn't have a conversation with him. eyed over number one, but i think it happened about 2005 election. i followed my own path. and i don't feel, you know sitting here now, that i was pushed or encouraged or certainly told to go a certain way. i remember the process quite well, and i was determined that we would spend a reasonable amount of time with politicians from both parties, and then we would make up our own minds. >> move forward to october 2005, conservative party conference. there were five candidates standing for the leadership, you

will recall that, mr. coulson. >> yes. >> you tell us in a statement that you met mr. david cameron there at a dinner hosted by les hinton. do you recall? >> yes. >> wiki soon your preferred candidate for the leadership is? >> certainly not that stage. i mean, i had taken the time to look back at some "news of the world" traditions around that period, and i don't think that the "news of the world" ever explicitly supported mr. cameron in the leadership that i think we dashed a i don't think we explicitly support anyone but we employed at that stage william hague as a columnist, and i think that mr. haig expressed a preference. of course, he then went -- [inaudible] >> from your own personal perspective was he your preferred candidate for the leadership? >> i don't think i formed at that stage a clear view.

i found a leader actually as i is looking at this issue. i found a leader from the "news of the world" where we suggested that it was, he is to win. and i think, i haven't anything to the contrary, i think that's as far as it went. so it certainly went against them, put it that way. >> december '05 and january '07, was the "news of the world" clearly moving towards supporting the conservative party at the next election? >> i don't think so. i mean, the "news of the world" under my editorship, they came out with a headline -- [inaudible] i don't think that was especially helpful to mr. kamen. i don't think that, i don't think that that is the case. >> on page 34 of your statement, agenda for your meetings with politicians around this time,

can you make it clear, at no point in any of these conversations was a potential sport of the "news of the world" discuss nor indeed were any commercial issues. by commercial issues presenting direct business or commercial interest in news international, do you? >> yes. >> did you discuss these would nonetheless impact on the impact of interest, pardon me, on the press more generally such as conditional agreements, a perfect sentencing for breaches of the protection act, those sorts of vicious? >> i don't, i don't recall doing so, no. >> human rights act, was that a frequent topic of conversation? >> that may have come up in conversation. yes, it's possible. >> in the context of the human rights act, were you in the school of the camps that freedom of the press was to take presidents for certain

individual? >> on a believer of the freedom of the press, yes speak so there were conversations about the human rights act. it's clear what your positions would have been? >> i'm certainly a greater -- a believer in the freedom of the press. that much is true. >> in the same period, december '05-january '07, as regards your dealings with politicians, would it be fair to say that it was a clear subtext of your dealings with senior politicians of all three main parties, they were keen to know whether the "news of the world" would support a? >> no. sort of explicit issue of who you support us has never been asked, was never asked by me during that time. directly, no. >> clear subtext, the way i put it. >> well, i think they,

politicians from both sides in those conversations were seeking to get their message across, and hope that it would be received by us in a positive light. >> usually in human interaction one knows what the other person wants out of it. it's not rocket science, is it. this is the clear subtext of your conversations with politicians, isn't it a? >> the agenda for me was to work out in the course of the conversation whether or not the party or the politician or the party he represents would best serve the interest of these readers. i had some idea as to what kind of, what constituted that. >> do you think that politicians you spoke to knew that you are a conservative party supporter? >> i don't know. >> you refer to a conversation with mr. brown in 2006 am a

labour conference, d.c. that? paragraph 36. >> yes. >> if it was at the labour conference in manchester that year, we knew because it was announced that mr. blair would be leaving within the year and, therefore, in all probability mr. brown would be the next prime minister. are you with a? >> i think that was a given, yeah. >> he said to you, are you say, i remember that meeting well because mr. brown told me, had it on very good authority that river burdock would appoint me as editor of "the sun" when rebekah was promoted. you see that? >> yes. >> he was effectively telling you that he was already, rupert murdoch's decision one, that rebekah wade would be promoted, and that too, you would be inclined to be the next editor of "the sun." >> that's what he was saying, yes.

[inaudible] >> because i didn't. frankly, believe that river burdock would've had a conversation conversation with him. >> but why not? he was close to mr. brown, wasn't he? >> my understanding of how news international works in terms of appointments of editors is that he would not have involved a conversation to either that stage by the way because it was sometime after that that rebekah was promoted, quite sometime after that. and also i just didn't believe it. i came away believing that this was an attempt by mr. brown to sort of impress on me his closeness to mr. murdoch. and i, quite frankly i didn't believe it. >> it was certainly an attempt by mr. brown to impress on you his proximity to mr. murdoch. that's clear. that was the strong message he was transmitting to you. his two predictions were right, weren't they? >> his two predictions were right. i did become the editor of "the

sun." i would say his predictions go, -- [inaudible] >> you might have become the rebekah was promoted, took the -- >> she was sometime later, yes. >> you refer then to mr. osborne, you say you met with him in 2005, this is paragraph 37 -- >> yes. >> did you get on well with mr. osborne? >> i got a long fun. we didn't spend a lot of time together but i remember having a cup of coffee with him at that conference spent in paragraph 38 specifically with a story which was published in the "news of the world" in october 2005? >> yes. >> you asked to do with it and your witness statement, which you have done. can we just understand the context, where or what the sunday mirror, also published the same story? >> yes, i'm not sure at what point i was aware the sunday mirror was going to publish the

story. but they did publish the same story. >> on the same sunday? >> yes. >> and you could anticipate that the sunday near his position would be quite hostile to george osborne, couldn't you? >> well, i did know, i'm not sure that i knew that the republishing it so i haven't given any thought. but if so i think it's a given the sunday mirror was a left-leaning newspaper. so in my opinion more critical -- >> we are going to leave our live coverage of inquiry into british phone hacking out as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. you should know you can continue watching with this testament on phone hacking life right now online at c-span.org. also, we will show this again in its entirety later on the c-span networks and it will be available anytime today at c-span.org. we mention, the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. more work expected on a bill that would prevent the doubling of student loan interest rates.

lawmakers may take up a bill reauthorizing the u.s. export-import bank. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the protector of nations, hallowed be your name. give this day to the members of

this legislative body such self-discipline that they will choose not what they wish but what they ought. give them also the strength of will so that they may accept the right, however difficult it is, and refuse the wrong, however attractive it may be. lord, give them the wisdom to pray for each other, not only for those with whom they agree but also for those whom they might disagree. impart to them a unity of spirit as they deal with the diversity of ideas. we pray in your gracious name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, may 10, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties f the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i move now to proceed to calendar number 396, h.r. 2072. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed

to calendar number 396, h.r. 2072, an act to reauthorize the export-import baipg of the united states and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president we're now on the motion to proceed to the ex-im bill. i hope we can pass the bill today. i haven't had an opportunity today to speak to the republican leader, but i'll do that shortly and will decide if there's a way forward on that. so i ask unanimous consent that the next hour be divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the goral is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, on a strong bipartisan vote yesterday, the house passed a piece of commonsense job-creating legislation, the reauthorization of the 130er9 -e export-import bank. for many, many years, this legislation has helped american companies grow and sell their products overseas, creating tens of thousands of jobs, and for years the bank has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. it passed by unanimous consent on one occasion and by voice vote on another occasion.

it is a perfect example of the kind of smart investments congress should be making to spur job growth. so i hope the senate will be able to quickly approve the house-passed measure today and do it by unanimous consent. i'm optimistic that the 330-93 vote in the house yesterday will be enough to convince senate republicans they shouldn't hold up this legislation any longer. 330-93. the process of reauthorizing the export-import bank has taken too long. i hope we don't have to file cloture on this matter, but i will, if we must. let me remind you, mr. president ... the senate considered reauthorizing this important legislation in march, two months ago. senate republicans had an opportunity to support the measure then. instead, all but three opposed it, and the measure failed. the american exporters have already waited in limbo for two months to see whether republicans would come around to

backing this business friendly, job-creating issues. businesses shouldn't have to wait longer. we can't afford more of the partisan obstruction we saw on this commonsense legislation last march. to get to the president's desk, this congress and every piece of legislation that we pass must get to his desk or it doesn't become law. so to do that, we need democratic votes and republican votes. that's just a reality. and it means we absolutely must work together if we want to get anything done. one man who's always been willing to extend a hand to colleagues across the aisle is the senior senator from indiana, richard lugar. his first priority has always been getting things done for the american people. whether that means keeping the world safe from nuclear war or working it out for who is aers back home -- or looking out for

hoosieprs back home t. lugar of georgia -- i'm sorry, lugar of indiana and nunn of georgia, important legislation. he's been an advocate for people of indiana as well as dedicated student of international affairs. he's never miss add meeting that i have -- i have the opportunity to call meetings with foreign dignitaries and he's always there sitting at the table. senator lugar has always put the american people in my estimation first and his political party second. i was elected to the senate to serve each and every nevadan, not only democrats -- though i'm proud to be one. senator lugar was elected to serve every hoosier regardless of political affiliation. throughout the history of this country, even in the most trying times, that's times of great

social and political unrest, our elected representatives have worked together despite their differences to do what's right for all meps. so i worry when i see dedicated patriots like senator lugar thrown out by tea party zealots for being too unwilling to cooperate. but that's what happened on tuesday. i worry when i hear a candidate of the u.s. senate campaigning against bipartisanship and compromise between their two parties. that's really what he did. so there's too much compromise in the congress, but that's what happened on tuesday. and i worry when a candidate for u.s. senate says that he'll put party before compromise. but that's what happened on tuesday. that's nothing to be produced, mr. president. that kind of attitude is why longtime political observer obss describe today's g.o.p. as scornful at compromise. it is why my friend senator

lugar said this morning in his concession speech -- i'm sorry, not this morning, as my friend senator lugar said yesterday in his concession speech, "bipartisanship is not the principle. one can be i have conservative and very liberal and still have a bipartisan mind-set. such are a mind-set being a nonls that the other party is also patriotic and they have some good ideas." "bipartisan is not the opposite principle. one can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mind-set. such a mind-set also acknowledges that the other party is also pie trotic and may have some good ideas." we should all remember regardless of our party that it's been the hallmark of this country for more than 200 years, compromise. mr. mcconnell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i certainly share my friend, the majority leader's views, about senator lugar's record but i would remind myself colleagues that he has 18 months to be among us and to serve this country and i think an appropriate time to celebrate his outstanding career would be when it comes to an end here in the senate. with regard to what's been going on here in the senate, the problem clearly is the majority, which seems not to be interested in accomplishing anything but, rather, turning the senate floor into an opportunity for showboats for the president and his campaign. earl whyer iearlier this week, the president had a post-it note for congress. he said he did not want to overload congress. unfortunately besides the weekly political showboats to which i just referred to coincide with the president's campaign schedule, the work that needs to be done isn't.

no budget, nothing to prevent the largest tax hike in history, and house-passed bills sitting in the hopper. and while the president is trying to manufacture arguments that he can run on, house republicans have spent the last year and a half voting on and passing energy and jobs bills. in fact, more than two dozen job proposals are currently collecting dust on the majority leader's desk. one after know, the house has passed a budget, small business tax bill, bills to expand domestic energy production, and bills to reduce burdensome job-killing regulations. and despite some saying nothing can get done in an election year, they're not done yet over in the house. i commend my house colleagues for their leadership, energy,

and good work. so i have a suggestion. instead of focusing on his political post-it note checklist, the president and senate democrats should show some leadership and work with republicans to move on critical pro-growth bills. these proposals will help provide certainty and provide a much-needed boost to our economy. it would allow businesses to plan for the future and to begin to hire again. common ground can be achieved on these jobs bills and republicans stand ready to work with democrats to get them passed. with there'll 1 nearly 13 millis unemployed and millions more underemployed or giving up looking for work altogether, inaction and political games are really just not acceptable. action is required by this president and this congress now.

not after the election or by some future congress or administration. the country's problems are far too pressing. the american people expect us to work together for the good of our country. this year the senate should pass a budget. three years without a budget is completely unacceptable. congress should also move on comprehensive tax reform, a true all-of-the-above energy policy, and the elimination of burdensome regulations that are hurting businesses and hindering job creation. we can't stop there. congress must act swiftly to put forth a plan to deal with the largest tax increase in u.s. history that is only -- only eight months away. these are issues that can't be dealt with overnight. we need to start now. and anyone who says there is no time to get these things done either hasn't been watching the

senate floor late lit or does not believe this country is headed toward a fiscal cliff. where are the democratic-led senate and the president? where are they? what are they waiting for? what's the reason for the delay? the president giving another speech loaded with the same old ideas that have failed before is not going to cut it anymore. the president's post-it note checklist is insufficient to handle the challenges we face as a nation and, frankly, it's completely counterproductive. yesterday the majority leader said democrats are willing to make the tough choices. well, we're waiting. we're waiting. and with all due respect, we have a tough time believing our friends across the aisle when the only issues they care about these days are showboats, coordinated with the white house for political gain. so today let's stop the sho

showboats that are designed to fail. let's stop the blame games. let's come together and do what the american people expect us to do. as i said yesterday, our offer still stands. we're ready when you are. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. there will now be 60 minutes of debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2072 equally divided between the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak on the motion to proceed to the passage of the export-import bank legislation that has come over from the house and passed the house with a vote of 330-93, so a pretty

resounding vote in favor of moving forward on the ex-im bank, the export-import bank, that is a major tool to financing manufacturing in the united states when they have products to be sold around the globe. we hear the president talk all the time about the fact that we need to increase our exports. well, this is a very important tool that has existed for decades in helping businesses across our country produce product and get sales into overseas markets. so the fact that this legislation passed the house, again, with an overwhelming positive vote -- and i should point out to my colleagues here in the senate, without amendment. it was not amended on the floor. that is, that my colleagues on the house side, both republicans and democrat, worked out such a positive proposal that it went to the house floor without amendment. so now we have the chance to bring it up here and pass this legislation, and i would just urge my colleagues to do so very

quickly because this legislation and this authorization for the export-import bank is expiring at the end of this month. so, yes, here we are again at the 11th hour instead of giving predictability and certainty to a very important program, we're down to the last minutes about whether it's going to continue to operate in the normal ways that it does. so i'm here to ask my colleagues to, on the republican side of the aisle to move forward. do like your house colleagues did, agree to the legislation and let's get it our -- get it out of here so that people know across america that this program will continue. mr. president, i toured washington state, who has many, many companies that benefit from the export-import bank. one of them was a company on spokane washington, skafko, one of the largest makers of grain

silos in the world. they export these grain silos. they're used in the united states and all over the world. i saw 200 workers there that know firsthand how important it is to get this legislation adopted and moved forward because it means sales of those grain silos all around the world. and they have used this financing mechanism to expand overseas sales to 11 new countries and to make sure that they were continuing to compete on an international basis. if you look at over the last five years, this bank has supported over $64 billion of sales and exports in washington state. and so, yes, some of those jobs are related to aviation. but 83,000 of related jobs in washington state are small businesses, companies like

sonoco and moses lake, which is a machine shop. they do repair parts for aircraft for 40 different clients spread across the globe. we were at another company in yakima, music company which, if anybody's heard of manhasset music stands, it's an unbelievable story of a success of a company that has sales of over $1 million to various countries around the globe and people who definitely like the fact that "made in america" means quality and that they have been able to access all of these markets. and we saw in a company in the everett area, esther line, which has built airplane parts and employs over 600 people used this agreement. they build the overhead cockpit part of airplanes, and they sell those to a variety of businesses all around the globe.

and so without the financing of the ex-im bank, these companies lose out on an international basis to the financing mechanisms that other countries have, whether that's canada, europe, other places. so this program is very, very successful, and i might add, adds billions of dollars back to the u.s. government. this is not a program that costs us money. this is a program that basically generates revenue back to the federal government. so i just want to say to my colleagues there were several things that were added in the house bill g.a.o. report on evaluating the banks and capital market conditions, making sure that they do an annual report on due diligence and the purpose of the loan, additional requirements by treasury, making sure that we continue to oversee

the ex-im bank. lots of language in making sure there is transparency in the ex-im bank financing mechanism. i think this is a good resolution. i applaud my colleagues in the house, representatives hoyer and cantor and boehner, who all worked on this agreement. and i hope that my colleagues will move quickly on it. there's one thing that we know right now. we need to do everything we can to help our economy and to help jobs. the ex-im bank has been a proven job creator in the united states helping u.s. companies compete internationally. it has helped us pay down the deficit in the past. and now all we need to do is give it the certainty that it will continue to operate as of may 31, this year. so let's get on with this business of making sure that we're focusing on the economy and make sure the ex-im bank, we proceed to this measure and pass this as soon as possible. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is

recognized. mr. udall: before i turn to speaking to the subject of student loans, let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, our colleague from the state of washington, senator cantwell. i heard the republican leader talk about progrowth agenda. well, there's nothing more progrowth than exporting american goods and services overseas to the growing markets all over the world. and the ex-im bank has a long record of providing the foundation on which our businesses, small, medium and large, can do just that. let's bring up what the house has passed and move it through this chamber as fast as possible. mr. president, mentioned i want to stand up this morning and speak on behalf of students all across america. in my home state of colorado, students and recent college graduates are literally struggling with a mountain of loan debt. as a mountain climber myself, i

understand that mountains can be overcome, but in an economy like this one where recent college graduates are struggling to find work, we need to do everything we possibly can to make college more affordable. that is where we the congress comes in. the interest rate on the federally subsidized stafford loans are set to double on july 1 barring congressional action. we just don't have much time to play political games here before the mountain of debt facing our students begins to grow even higher. student loans play a crucial role in making higher education possible for millions of americans, and for many americans higher education is the gateway to their future careers and a better-paying job. that's a good they think for our families and a good thing for our economy. again, referencing the republican leader's concerns about a progrowth agenda. more specifically, let me talk

about what the federally subsidized stafford loans do. they're designed for americans from low- to middle-income families so they too can afford to go to college. at times when students are facing escalating tuition costs and an uncertain job market after graduation, it would be irresponsible for us not to act as soon as possible. but i have to report to you and our colleagues that we're being blocked from doing just that. there's a commonsense proposal before us that would prevent student loan interest rates from doubling but it's being filibustered. all these students want, all the young people we all know is an opportunity to better themselves and contribute to our nation's economic growth. we have a chance to offer them that opportunity, but we've got to end the political games here and get to work. we can't let partisanship stand in the way of a college education for young americans. it just doesn't make sense. certainly out in my state of

colorado. coloradoans understand this and they're telling me, as i think they are in the presiding officer's state and states all across the country, just get it done. there's no time left. just get it done. i ask colorado students through my facebook page to contact me with their concerns so that i could share them here on the senate floor. and i wanted to bring their voices directly to the congress so we would all understand better what's at stake in colorado and all over our country, so it might give us additional motivation. i'd like to share a couple of stories here on the floor of the senate. justin espanol is a single mother of two children, enrolled in nursing school after being displaced from her job in the mortgage industry. she enrolled in nursing school so that she could provide for her family and contribute to the workforce. she said -- quote -- "i am just barely making ends meet and need

the help of student loans. please don't double my interest rate." then there's nicholas collins, he's a senior communications major at the university of colorado. and he's in the middle of preparing for final exams this week, but he took time to write to me. he wrote "senator udall, i will be graduating two weeks from today. i could not imagine a future where students would be forced to pay up to $1,000 more per year to pay off their loans. i would not be in the position i am today if it wasn't for federal aid. "kw-lgs -- the concerns expressed by justin and nicholas are examples expressed by millions of americans students. there is a broad consensus we have to prevent that stafford loans from doubling on july 1. however, many of our friends on the other side want to raid the prevention and public health

fund to offset the cost of these student loans. now, this fund is aimed at preventing chronic disease, and it was implemented as a part of the affordable care acts. the prevention and public health fund helps prevent chronic diseases including diabetes and heart disease while also providing much-needed dollars towards immunizations for children. i understand that the health bill was controversial, but to continue attacking it, peurbl when students -- especially when students' futures are on the line, is puzzling, to say the least. while we could be closing unfair tax loopholes, as the underlying bill proposes, republicans here in the senate are telling us we have to choose between a bright future for our children or preventing chronic disease for millions of americans. it just doesn't make sense. this is about providing opportunity. to say that we can no longer care for the sick or help

prevent chronic disease if we want to help students is a false and i mate say political choice. there are plenty of tax loopholes. big oil subsidies and other savings that don't leave students, the sick or hardworking americans out in the cold. mr. president, we owe it to people like justin and nicholas to come together to find a way to ensure that american students continue to have access to affordable loans. i look forward to working with you and our colleagues here in the senate to make sure that we do right by our nation's students on this. and i'd urge all of us to end this impasse and instead work together. let's roll up our sleeves literally and figuratively and find the right solution. let's prove to coloradoans, to the students in colorado and to all the students across our country that the senate can accomplish something important for our nation's education system, our country and our way

of life. mr. president, with that 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:

mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, i would ask to waive the quorum call, dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from new mexico is recognized.

mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to just say a few words about my good friend and my mentor in the senate, senator richard lugar. i heard both leaders here this morning mention senator lugar, and i just thought i would rise for a minute to talk about him because i've been lucky to have him as a mentor since i've arrived in the senate. senator mark pryor organized for our class when we came in mentors, usually a senior democrat, senior republican, and senator lugar was -- was that mentor for me, and he -- i've spent, as a result of that, a great deal of time with him, both in -- at the foreign senate relations committee and in a variety of committeings, and he's always given me -- the remarkable thing ssess a always

given me -- he's always given me very, very valuable advice. and above all, his advice has been -- is to urge bipartisanship, not for its own sake but because it's what makes the senate work, and what allows us to move foompletd and i didn't want to get up, as one of the leaders pointed out, he's going to be with us for eight more months, but i thought that there was something very important in his statement that he made, which i ask that the full statement be put in the record, mr. president, and then i just want -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: -- read a few words from what he said after he suffered this electoral loss, and i think these are words that we should all listen to here in senate because they're so wise and they kind of put us -- give us advice and put us on a path that we should be on. and here, these are senator

lugar's words. "legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. i believe i have offered that throughout my career, but ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself or for a willingness to study an issue objectively. and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even with your constituents. like edmund burke, i believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment. too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. one can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mind-set. such a mind-set acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. it acknowledges that national

unity is important and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. certainly this was understood by president reagan, who worked with democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today, from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 social security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control greements -- arms control agreements had in his second term. i don't remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. republican members are now

expected to take pledges against any new tax increases. for two consecutive president of the united statesdential nomination cycles, g.o.p. candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting block. is similarly, most democrats are constrained when they talk about such irv issues as entitlement cuts, trade agreements. we are losing the ability to even explore alternatives. if fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader. i hope that as a nation we aspire to move more than that. i hope we will demand judgment from our leaders."

and those are the words of senator lugar. i think they're very wise words. i think we should all read his whole speech and try to put the senate on a better path. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call i would note for the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, in just two weeks, like many proud

parents across this country, i will be watching as my youngest daughter walks across the graduation stage. for some students, this important milestone marks the end of their college days and the beginning of a professional career. this achievement should be filled with hope for a great future, but for many it will be a story saddled with student loan debt and uncertainty about the economy, their job prospects and their future. as i've listened to many of my democratic colleagues discuss the extension of the special interest rate for the subsidized stafford loans, i continue to hear false statements that would lead you to believe that republicans don't support extending this interest rate for students. mr. president, that's simply not true. my state of south dakota, nearly 30,000 students received subsidized stafford loans during the 2011 -- 2010-2011 school year. while i support alleviating financial pressure on students, i did not support the partisan legislation that was brought

forward by majority leader reid that would extend subsidized stafford loans while raising taxes on some employers. not because the goal of the legislation is misguided but the way the majority leader proposed to pay for the legislation is misguided. majority leader reid's legislation, like its republican counterpart, would extend the special rate of 3.4% for subsidized stafford loans that existed for the 2011 and 2012 school year to the 2012 and 2013 school year. i agree with the extension of this special rate and would simply ask the majority leader to allow a vote on the republican alternative, which i might add passed the house of representatives by a bipartisan vote on april 27. i voted against moving to the majority leader's bill because i disagree with the way that my democratic colleagues have proposed to pay for the temporary one - year extension on two grounds. first, i fundamentally disagree

with the idea of a permanent tax increase on certain job creators to pay for a temporary one-year extension. we're talking about permanent tax changes to pay for temporary spending. that is bad policy, mr. president. i furthermore believe that any discussion about raising taxes should be addressed in a comprehensive tax reform discussion, not in a student loan bill. second, i disagree with diverting the payroll tax revenue away from the medicare and social security trust funds where it would ordinarily be directed. we saw this done during the health care bill a couple of years ago, where medicare reductions and revenue increases that were supposed to go to extend the life span of medicare were in fact used to pay for new spending. we cannot continue to try and fool the american people that we're somehow extending the life span of medicare when we are spending that money on new

programs. we're essentially double counting revenue and spending the same money twice. you cannot do that, mr. president. you cannot do that anywhere else in the country, in this economy and yet here in washington, d.c. that's become the practice. what this would do is take tax changes, take changes in the tax code that would ordinarily go into the payroll tax fund or medicare trust fund, and now that's going to be used to pay for something else. this is a practice we cannot continue, we cannot sustain. we all know that our trust funds are headed toward bankruptcy, and continuing to raid them and use them for other purposes is simply a recipe for disaster. and so i would agree with the 37 business groups who wrote a letter to leaders reid and mcconnell strongly opposing the $9 billion tax increase on small businesses proposed in the majority leader's legislation. these groups represent millions of employers, and they range from the national federation of independent business to the independent community bankers to the national restaurant

association. 37 business groups all coming out opposed to the changes, the tax increases that would be included to pay for this -- or keeping the interest rate at 3.4%. i believe there could be bipartisan support for a proposal that's been put forward by senators enzi and alexander, who are both leaders on education policy here in the senate. they have proposed an alternative that pays for a temporary one-year extension of the 3.4% interest rate by taking money from a slush fund created by obamacare in 2010. the president and democrats have supported taking money from the slush fund in the past, so it seems odd that now they're suddenly up in arms in support of a slush fund supposedly aimed at prevention. the president's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal recommends using the prevention slush fund for other federal priorities. and my democrat colleagues here in the senate supported taking

$5 billion from the fund merely 11 weeks ago. so there's broad support for the idea of prevention, but the recent record of the use of federal prevention dollars shows that these dollars are not being spent wisely. funds in the prevention slush fund can be used on almost anything in the name of prevention and wellness. for example, jungle gyms, bike paths, farmers' markets, those are the types of things this so-called prevention slush fund is being used for. keep in mind, in 2010 that my democratic colleagues used the $9 billion in savings in federal student aid program changes to pay for part of obamacare. instead of using that money to address the looming issue of the scheduled return to these higher interest rates on student loans. it only seems rational, it only seems fitting, mr. president, to use the money that came from the student loan industry to address the interest rates for subsidized stafford loans. it strikes me at least as very logical that since these funds

were diverted from these student aid funds in the first place to pay for obamacare that we ought to recapture some of those funds to help keep student loan interest rates at the lower 3.4% level. what's particularly interesting, if the president has suddenly taken such a deep interest in this issue when in 2007 he didn't even show up in the senate to vote for the original legislation that created the temporary phased-down interest rate for subsidized stafford loans. despite the president's rhetoric, the greatest threat to young people looking for a job isn't the loan rates, but the obama economy. this year's crop of college students looking for jobs are confronting an economy in which unemployment has remained above 8% for 39 straight months. a recent associated press report found that one out of every two recent graduates is jobless or underkphroeud within a year

of -- underemployed within a year of finishing school. a gallup poll released this week gives more bad news for young adults. according to gallup underemployment among 18 to 29-year olds hovered around 30%. those lucky enough to find employment are more likely to find jobs as waiters and bartenders than engineers and mathematicians. on tuesday the president was touting his to-do list for congress. it's particularly interesting since the president had three and a half years to put policies in place that would strengthen the economy. so here's what our graduates are getting. here's what that obama economy has brought about. long-term unemployment, up 89%. the number of americans who are on food stamps is up 45%. gas prices have doubled. college tuition is up 25%. worker health insurance costs are up 23%. and the federal debt that we're

passing on to future generations is up 47%. the only thing that's gone down on his watch are home values. they're down 14%. mr. president, our country and our college graduates have had enough of the obama economy. instead of the to-do list that the president has put forward, mr. president, we have a to-stop list for you. stop job-killing regulations that are hurting our small businesses' ability to create jobs. stop trying to raise taxes on job creators and small businesses who are the people that are going to hire our college graduates. stop blocking the keystone x.l. pipeline which will help wean our country from the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. and stop the divisive use of class warfare that does nothing but divide americans. it's time for the president and congress to come to the realization that we have got to shift our focus away from election-year standoffs and come

together to focus on changing the course of our lagging economy so that we can once again put our young people back to work. that, mr. president, is the real objective which should be our focus here. these other issues which are a lot of campaign gimmicks, a lot of opportunities to politicize this issue or that issue are really counterproductive in the long run and the floor of the united states senate is being used to make campaign points rather than address fundamental issues that are affecting americans and our economy. and i would hope that we can come together to work in a constructive way on policies that will get americans back to work. and that means doing something about these regulations which are crushing the ability of our small businesses to create jobs. and you hear about it every single day. i travel my state of south dakota or elsewhere around the country, you hear from businesses, the people who are out there trying to create jobs,

about regulations, about taxes, about the cost of things, their input is going up. those are the issues we ought to be addressing. we ought to figure out thousand reform the tax code, reducing federal spending and reforming our entitlement programs so we can save social security and medicare. we ought to be looking at what we can do to put in place a real all-of-the-above energy strategy that would help keep energy costs affordable for people out there creating jobs. those are the types of things, mr. president, that in my view, we ought to be focusing on. and, frankly, we've seen a lot of action and activity in the other body, the house of representatives, many bills that they have sent to the united states senate that are small business bills, that would address these very issues: the high cost of regulations, the issue of taxation, the issues of energy tph-pbdz, all these -- energy independence, all these things that we believe would get americans back to work and offer more opportunity to college

graduates as they emerge from their programs much study this year and in years to come. and yet, we continue to have the rhetoric here on the floor of the united states senate suggesting that somehow republicans are not in favor of keeping interest rates low for student loans. i mean, think about that. it's just illogical to even suggest that. but we do have a fundamental difference of opinion about how we ought to pay for that. the other side suggests that we pay for that by raising taxes on people who create jobs. we believe that you ought to go back and take the funds out of the prevention slush fund which was created, incidentally, in the first place out of dollars that were allegedly saved when the federal government took over the student loan program, which happened as a part of obamacare. not a lot of people realize that because it got buried in the whole debate over health care. but the student loan program, which used to be administered out of private lenders, where they originated the service of the loans, has now been taken over by the government. and in doing so, savings were

counted that were then used to pay for the cost of the health care bill. and so all we're simply doing is saying the slush fund that was created by the funds that supposedly were saved by moving the student loan program into the government, we ought to be using student loan programs, fund programs to actually keep the funds that ought to be used to fund keeping the interest rate low, down at the 3.4% for college students today. it seems, as i said, very fitting to me, very logical, very intuitive that that would be the way that we would fund this. but to suggest for a minute that somehow republicans here in the united states senate are not in favor of keeping interest rates as at low a rate as possible for our college students is completely missing the point and smacks of election-year politics. and i hope that we can get away from that and really focus on not only a solution in the near term to this issue, but also the bigger issue. and the bigger issue is the

fact, as i just mentioned, that literally one half of all college students today that are coming out are either not finding jobs are are underemployed. and those that are finding jobs are making significantly less than those who graduated just a few years ago. that is an economic problem. that is a problem that needs to be addressed not by simply having a debate about student loans, but what we're going to do to get this economy growing again and get american businesses creating jobs. we need to make it less expensive and less difficult for american businesses to create jobs, not more expensive and more difficult, which is precisely what's happening today as a result of the policies coming out of this administration in the form of regulations and many of the legislative initiatives that are coming out of the congress or at least being proposed to come out of the united states senate. i want to work with my colleagues on solutions that will put americans back to work and give our college graduates

greater opportunity, greater hopes for a higher standard of living, a hire quality of life, something many of us have inherited from those who come before us but is increasingly at risk and in jeopardy today simply because of the amount of spending, the amount of debt and the policies coming out of out f washington that are making it increasingly difficult for us to get out from underneath an economy that is struggling with anemic growth and chronic high unemployment. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. boozman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank the senator from south dakota for his leadership in this area and very much agree with the comments that he just made. last week while home in arkansas, i had the opportunity to visit some of our state's excellent universities. while spending an afternoon at the university of central arkansas, i saw firsthand the innovative ways that u.c.a.

promotes undergraduate education in all areas, including science, arts, nursing and business. for instance, the university's nursinnursing program has entero a program with a local hospital that will address our nursing short afnlgt a day later i was at the arkansas university at littlerock to see its nan nanotechnology. it works with matter on an atomic and mall will he could you already a scale. arkansas is well-poised to take advantage of this exciting new world of economic opportunities and capitalize on nanotechnology breakthroughs discovered at ular and other universities throughout the state. by pooling the brain power of

academic and corporate partners throughout the state, the center's research is sure to thread advances in the field of nanotechnology. these innovative programs at u.c.a. and ular are perfect examples of how arkansas's universities are moving forward with the future in mind. our higher education institutions are an elite class. we are blased with top-notch facilities and premier educators. but that comes at a price. the increasing mandates arkansas and every state for that matter are facing as a result of obamacare hurts our ability to fund our states' schools. the extra burden phase placed on the state's medicaid program means much less money to spend for education. our universities are forced to raise their tuition to cover the shortfall. higher tuition puts the dream of college out of reach for many young americans. this is why the stafford student loan program is so important.

loans help students overcome obstacles they face when it comes to accessing a quality, affordable education. my three daughters attended college, so i'm well aware of the financial toll tuition takes on a family's finances. so we've got to fix this issue concerning the interest rate increases before july 1. these interest rates should not be allowed to double, but the troubles facing young americans are greater than rising interest rates for student loans. for our graduates it doesn't matter where you get your degree from if there are no jobs to be had once you have a diploma in your hand. and that is the problem with the job market our young people are graduating into today. the reality is that it is a tough time to be young. we have the lowest employment-to-population ratio for young adults since 1948. over half of americans under 25

who hold a bachelor's degree are unemployed or underemployed. nearly 25 million adults live at home with their parents, not oust choice but because they can't find work or earn enough to survive on their oafnlt any way you cut it, college graduates are ready to chase the american dream, are having a roadblock awaiting them in this economy. we've got to stop this trend. we've got to work together do this. while giving arkansas students access to the very best education possible at an affordable rate, we must also work to ensure there is a healthy job market awaiting them upon graduation. earlier this week the senate majority brought forth its bill to extend the lower interest rate on federal subsidized stafford loans. i am confident we will find a

way to accomplish it before the deadline. but the reason the majority proposal failed is because it is the wrong approach. their proposal funded it by raising taxes on our small businesses. this idea of taxing or spending our way out of the fiscal mess is why the economy is not rebounding. continuing down in path will only make it harder for graduates to enter the workforce. so let's do it what we all agree needs to be done and extend the low-rate loans. but let's be smart about how it's paid for. the proposal supported on this side of the aisle is identical to the version that hassed the house in a -- that has passed theous in a bipartisan manner. it freeze the rate for a year by using money from an unused obamacare account to pay for it. this money is just sitting there obligated for a program that does not operate. the president already proposed cutting it in his own budget. it is likely this money will never be spent, so let's use it

for a reason we all support: protecting student loans. student loans are supposed to increase access to college by helping millions of americans earn a college degree. the student loan program should be a gateway to the workforce, not a barrier. any extension of the low-rate loans paid for by tax increases is simply this, a barrier, because tax increases stifle job creation. let's fix the problem without making our economic situation worse and get america working again. with that, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. johnson: mr. president, i move to resunned the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. president, i rise today in support of h.r. 2072, the export-import bank reauthorization act of 2012. i believe this is a jobs legislation that will help provide u.s. exporters and workers with an important tool to compete in the global marketplace. the export-import bank is the official export credit agency of the u.s., and it assists in financing the exporting of u.s. goods and services to international markets. while allowing the financial

crierkz the bank experienced a dramatic increase in its activities as many companies struggled to find financing in the private market. last year the bank committed almost $33 billion in support of u.s. exports, a new record. the bank has been self-funded since 2008, returning nearly $2 billion to the treasury. in fiscal year 2011 alone, the bank generated $400 million to offset federal spending n. and bring down the budget deficit. one when other -- when other countries are helping their companies with export financing, we cannot afford to unilaterally disarm in the face of this global competition.

the export-import bank's charter directs it to use exports to support american jobs. and last year the export-import bank supported almost 290,000 american jobs. these are jobs in cities and towns across the nation at large companies as well as small businesses. in fact, last year the export-import bank financed more than $6 billion in exports by small businesses. in my home state of south dakota, ex-im has worked with large and small businesses to help export goods all over the world. last september there was unanimous bipartisan support when we passed a four-year reauthorization bill out of the banking committee. unfortunately, that measure was

blocked on the senate floor in march. legislation before us today reflects a bipartisan compromise developed in the house. while in bill is not perfect, i believe it is important to pass this legislation and ensure that the export-import bank is able to continue providing financing assistance to american exporters and workers. this is a jobs bill. earlier this week the house passed this bill by an overwhelming majority, 330-93. this bill extends the authorization of the bank until 2014. like the senate bill, this legislation will increase the bank's lending authority to $140 billion. this is a significant

improvement over earlier drafts in the house to only increase the cap to $113 billion. adopting the senate's proposal to improve this bill, there are additional versions in the house bill similar to provisions in the senate bill that will add transparency and accountability requirements to improve the bank's information technology infrastructure, extend the bank's sub-saharan african advisory panel and provide for greater oversight of the bank's risks it might have to taxpayers. i'm also pleased that the house included language that strengthens restrictions against companies to end business with iran. these provisions, which reflect

an earlier agreement by the house and senate committees of jurisdiction, are vital to our efforts to increase the pressure on iran's illicit nuclear program. i believe there are important provisions to strengthen the bill and am glad that the house included them. lastly, this legislation includes the senate language on domestic content. this language, which is supported by groups with important protections in it to ensure that goods exported by the banks continue to be made in america. although there were efforts in the house to weaken this provision, i'm pleased to see the house accepted the senate's position on this important issue. after multiple short-term extensions, i'm relieved to see that this congress will finally

reauthorize the export-import bank. i believe that by reauthorizing the export-import bank, we are taking an important step in supporting american businesses and workers. i commend minority whip hoyer and majority leader cantor in the house for coming to an agreement. i also want to thank majority leader reid for his tireless efforts in working to reauthorize the ex-im bank. as chairman of the banking committee, over the next few years i will continue to closely monitor the efforts of the ex-im bank to ensure that it is effectively and efficiently supporting american exporters and workers. today i urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield the floor.

and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i rise on the senate floor today to pay tribute to mary leahy, director of the central vermont adult basic education. sister, friend, and lifetime educator who is retiring this month. for 40 years, central vermont adult basic education has provided free literacy service for adults and out-of-school

youth. 37 of those years, mary leahy has been at the helm in her role as codirector of central vermont adult basic education, mary dedicated herself to preparing lower-skilled workers to meet the demands of the shifting economy. whether attending town halls, community centers, libraries or knocking on doors directly, mary has spread the word. she's recruited members for this program all over the state. i have seen the joy in the face of a grandfather able to read a children's story to a grandchild, something the grandfather was not able to do for that child's parents because he couldn't read when they were a child. in a recent article honoring

mary in the times auguste, vermont poet laureate sidney lee said these kind words about mary: this has been way beyond a job for mary. it's really a vision of humanity that she's been dedicated to. i have an admiration for her that's pretty close to boundless. mr. president, i agree with my friend sidney. mary's lifelong passion for learning has enabled countless vermonters to gain the critical skills needed to participate in today's workforce. in our country today, 80 million adults face at least one educational barrier such as no high school diploma or no college. 3% to 4% with the most limited literary efficiency receive the basic skills training from their employers. under mary's guiding hand,

center for vermont adult basic education has allowed vermonters young and old to reach their full potential and be successful both in the classroom and the workforce. i might add parenthetically, also just in their everyday life. now, as her older brother i've known mary all her life. she is a loving, intelligent and hardworking person. she has the soul and talent of an artist, the generosity of a saint in sharing her khrepbt -- talent and commitment. i'm so proud of mary, and i ask unanimous consent the times august article in closing a chapter be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i rise today on an issue that concerns -- the presiding officer: the senator is notified we're in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted and i ask that this be as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. privacy is a fundamentally and

almost a uniquely american value. it is the reason the colonies rebelled, one of the major reasons they rebelled against the british. the invasion of our homes by british soldiers without court approval, the lodging of those soldiers in our homes without permission, the invasion of the fundamental rights of privacy were one of the basic reasons that this nation sought independence from the british. and so throughout our history, privacy has been a value, a fundamental right, affirmed again and again in our courts, enshrined in our constitution, ingrained in our way of life. that is a reason that so many of us were offended and regarded as reprehensible and repugnant, a practice that was revealed recently, a practice involving

employers coercing and compelling the disclosure of log-in information, user names and passwords to private accounts and private systems by job applicants, and the same kind of coercion and compulsion applied to current or existing employees as a condition of their continuing in their jobs. that kind of practice is abhorrent and it is the reason that yesterday, along with a number of my colleagues from both this body and others from the house of representatives introduced the password protection act of 2012. these practices are unacceptable for a number of reasons. an employer has plenty of ways other than accessing private

accounts, email, storage data and accounts on facebook or other social networking sites to obtain information that's relevant to employer needs and interests in offering a position to someone. there are means, other means that are adequate and acceptable. what's not acceptable is coercing and compelling that access to an an applicant's email account which could contain all kinds of personal information that is inappropriate and unnecessary for an employer to know, information that is irrelevant, in fact, to the terms and duties of a person's employment. second, the disclosure itself endangers the security of that applicant's personal data as

well as the web sites themselves. too many careless companies too often have lost customer data or employee information, allowing it to be breached through poor security practices. that is the reason that i propose a measure that would require safeguards of that data, a separate measure that is before this chamber now to assure adequate remedies when there are breaches to require systems in place by employers to guard that information. an applicant who takes care to use encrypted networks or other personal safeguards may find his or her personal information, financial data, medical information breached through no fault of his own simply because the company fails to take adequate steps to safeguard it.

there is another reason why these practices are abhorrent, and that is identity theft by the employer itself, a continuing danger, and that kind of potential danger is a real one that certainly raises this interest very squarely. but maybe as important as any of these other interests is the danger to compromise of the security of third parties, loved ones, family, friends who have entrusted the person who is applying for a job or who is employed by a company that breaches its responsibility by demanding this information. when an employer logs into an

employee's personal accounts, he sees that employee's emails, with her spouse or facebook pictures of her siblings and her children. those parties are completely unaware that one of their friends or family members, employers may be reading their correspondence or looking at their pictures. a daughter who tells her mother of a pregnancy, a son who acknowledges an addiction to a parent, a father who speaks of his wife's illness in confidence to his children. each has an expectation of privacy that is betrayed and violated when an employer demands long-in information, user names or passwords from a job applicant or a current employee. the impact is not only on that employee or job applicant but on innocent loved ones, friends,

family whose confidential information, emails and other data may be exposed. and, of course, when information is exposed in this way, there is the danger of discrimination based on marital status, sex, gender, other kinds of prohibited categories, and so barring the compelled disclosure of this information actually is an aid to the employer because it assures that none of these hiring decisions or firing is based on a prohibited category or discrimination. the password protection act addresses all these concerns and prohibits employers from forcing prospective or current employees to hand over personal private financial information that has no place in the hiring process. the bill prohibits an employer from compelling or coercing an

employee or prospective employee to provide access as a condition of employment. this means that an employer cannot compel a prospective or current employee to provide his g-male password. an employer cannot force an employee or prospective employee to log onto a password protected account so that the employer may browse at the account's content. the password protection act also very, very importantly prohibits retaliation, which is a danger with current employees. that retaliation could take all kinds of forms, but the demand for log-in information, user names or passwords certainly creates a kind of presumption that the refusal to do so prompts action that can be

regarded as a retaliation, and an employer who violates these duties, legally required duties is subject to a penalty of $10,000 per violation. so this act will protect employees from unreasonable invasions of their privacy, unreasonable invasions that have no commonsense basis, and it prevents unintended consequences. it doesn't prohibit social networking within the office on a voluntary basis. it does not bar employers from conducting valid investigations of misconduct. it does not prevent an employer from controlling the company's own system, its own facebook account, for example, and it provides that states may exempt certain categories of employees

such as individuals who deal with children who are under 13 years of age or federal employees who may have access to classified or secure national security information. and it also provides for reasonable exemptions that state law may make for state employees who are involved, for example, in law enforcement or correction. like many in this body, i have heard from countless connecticut citizens who are not only offended but outraged by these practices reported in the press. fortunately, many employers have shown they get it, they understand this deeply held value, and they have rejected these possible practices. and many who might have been contemplating engaging in them have likewise retreated and

reversed their decisions. and so merely shining a light, showing a spotlight and raising the issue has brought many employers to understand the commonsense force of objections to these practices. i want to thank grassroots groups like the 57,000 citizens at bold progressives who signed a petition at protect our passwords dot org to let washington know, 57,000 of them strong, that they reject the idea that their employers will force them to hand over this personal private information. i want to thank the activists at access now who are generating similarly a groundswell of support for this initiative, and

they are working to protect employee rights on the job. and i want to thank also companies like facebook, twitter, microsoft, google who have cooperated and supported this effort, because they have an interest in preventing invasions of privacy, demands for information that are unnecessary, repugnant, reprehensible and unacceptable. and i thank all of them for working with us on this legislation. and finally, i want to thank senators schumer, klobuchar, shaheen, wyden, as well as sanders and akaka, as well as representatives hinrich and perlmutter on the other side of this body for working with me in introducing this bill. i'm hopeful that the congress will consider it promptly and successfully because i think it

sets a marker and provides a milestone in protecting individual privacy against abhorrent invasions, in the workplace and elsewhere, that have no place in american life. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, unless we act quickly, students across the country will face the largest increase in subsidized student loan interest rate in more than 40 years. in the last 40 years, the interest rate on subsidized student loans has never doubled from one year to the next, yet that is what is happening unless we act on july 1, just 52 days from now. unless my colleagues on the other side of the aisle relent and allow legislation to fix this problem to come to a vote, we will see a doubling of the student interest rates from 3.4%

to 6.8% for all borrowing going forward for education in the united states related to the stafford loan program. i know that the president of the senate has been taking an active and leadership role. senator brown of ohio, he is in the forefront along with senator harkin to ensure that we can move effectively to prevent this doubling of the interest rates. we're at a time where if you look across the industry, borrowing rates are at historic lows. we are essentially providing banks to the federal reserve with near zero percent interest loans. so it is incomprehensible at this time that we would actually double the loans that we would charge to students who are going to college. students and families cannot absorb these increases. it's a tough economy. they are facing rising tuition, dwindling state support for

higher education, making it more difficult, more complicated, and add to the burden by doubling these loans is bad public policy and directly affects middle-class americans, and in the longer run the competitiveness, the productivity and the success of our economy in a very -- and a very competitive global economy. we have to ensure also that we're not piling more and more debt on students. we have reached a point where student debt is becoming so extraordinarily difficult to bear that it inhibits people from going to school, it inhibits them from pursuing various professions after they graduate from college, and if we add to this mountain of debt, we'll create a huge financial problem going forward, not just for the individual bother owers, the stay tuned borrowers but for our economy.

in fact to the georgetown university center, over 60% of jobs going forward will require some postsecondary education by 2018. that underscores the essential need to go to college. in 2010, only 38.3% of working age adults had a two-year or four-year degree. so we're looking at a gap, a gap of the prepared individuals, college education, versus those jobs in the future and the not-too-distant future that will require a college education. to fill that gap we have to get more and young people spro into school, into higher education and beyond. by doubling this interest rate we will not be achieving that objective. that's why i introduced the student loan affordability act in january to permanently keep this interest rate low. i was joined by senator brown of

ohio, senator hawk inand others to make it quite clear we cannot afford for our country's sake and the work force to double this rate. we are debating today the stop student loan interest rate hike act. this is a fully paid for one-year extension of the current rate, to extend it for years so we can look for more permanent fix. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist that they agree that we have to do this. yet they continue to filibuster this legislation. they continue to prevent us from bringing it to a vote. it's clear that they have an alternative view in terms of how we pay for it. let's put that to a vote. but let's not stop it dead in its tracks a policy that both sides claim has to be fixed, that we have to avoid the doubling of this interest rate. now, what we have done is ahave

proposed to fix this problem and pay for it in a fiscally responsible manner by closing a glaring, egregious loophole in the tax code that enables certain wealthy individuals to shirk their responsibilities to pay payroll taxes. this predominantly benefits professional service providers like accountants, lobbyists and lawyers who derive all of their income from their professional labor. but because they choose to mischaracterize their income as a distribution from a subchapter s corporation instead of wages, they avoid paying payroll taxes. in 2005, the treasury inspector general for taxed a administration called for action on this loophole which was described as in his words a multibillion-dollar tax shelter. the report also described a disturbing trend of businesses changing their status to the

subchapter s corporation for the purpose of avoiding payroll taxes, not for the purposes of expanding employment, not for the purposes of new and more efficient way to use capital, but essentially a tax dodge to avoid payroll taxes. the inspector general reported -- quote -- "up viting small businesses to shelter e-to the formation of s corporations has become a cottage industry. a search of the internet yields multiple sites that offer advice and encouragement to sole proprietors to convince them to become s corporations. they are advised they can save thousands of dollars a year in employment taxes by incorporate operating. it is possible to gauge the size of the savings using computer generated amounts based on the users' entries for anticipated profits and chosen salary levels. not surprisingly the lower the salary chosen, the higher the savings become, reaching

maximum savings at a salary level of zero." essentially what is being done in these professional corporations, these professional partnerships, associations, is that they glommed into a very, very clever tax shelter. you incorporate as subchapter s, have your employer pay the corporation, that corporation pays you a modest minimal salary, and the rest are dividends taxed at a different rate and not subject to the payroll tax. we're trying to close the tax loophole. and following the indications of the inspector general, a simple internet search confirms this finding. for example, one web site has a section entitled "how to reduce your fica taxes if you own a subchapter s corporation." that section provides a step-by-step instructions on how

to use this loophole and even provides advice on how to avoid being caught up in an audit. the web site advises owners to pay themselves the lowest possible salary to reduce their fica taxes, even if the distribution they take is a product of their labor. here is how the web site explains how to take advantage of this loophole. it explains that as an employee of your s corporation your salary is subject to social security and medicare taxes but the net profit of the s corporation is not subject to the payroll taxes. so the web site goes on to explain -- quote -- "the idea is to pay yourself the lowest possible salary to minimize social security and medicare taxes" -- close quote and take take the remaining taxes as a distribution which is not subject to payroll taxes. this is the loophole we're trying to fix. this loophole should be fixed regardless of how we use the proceeds, but frankly, we have a situation now where we have a

pressing need to help families across this country avoid a doubling of the interest rate on student loans and we have an egregious loophole that will allow us to responsibly pay for the maintenance of the lower interest rates. this seems to be an issue where public policy is well-balanced, we are told by our colleagues they agree with us, you can't double the interest rate. they should also agree with us -- agree with us you can't continue to tolerate this loophole and this is not only an appropriate way but indeed, seems to me, the best way to achieve our objective of preventing the increase, the doubling of the student interest rates. so, mr. president, we are working very hard to try to get this bill up for a vote.

if there are other proposals with respect to tax loopholes or the ways in which we can pay for this other than the proposal frankly that the house has suggested, which is go into the prevention funds for health care reform, which to me is adding and compounding to our not only fiscal problems but also going forward to our health care problems. we are right now recognizing that unless we aggressively have prevention programs, our health care costs will explode going forward. every day people talk about the increasing cost of obesity in this society. how do you get essentially a handle on that? you have to have resources, prevention, counseling, for nutritional programs. we take those funds away, we

just run the bill up for health care. and that bill ultimately is being paid in many cases by the same families who are struggling to find a way to send their children to college. so i would urge all of my colleagues to move, get this bill on the floor. if we want a debate about different methods of payment, that's fine. let's take votes, and then let's move on and pass this. i think we understand that time is running out, july 1 this -- the interest rates will double. we have seen progress going back a few months, our colleagues on this side were proposing budgets that recognized indeed supported the doubling of this interest rate. in march, throughout the spring, they were assuming and

they were supporting measures to double the interest rate. well, the good news now is they've said no, we can't do that. we've got to keep the rate at least for the next year. we're one step closer to a solution, but the final step is going to have to be responsibly paying for this proposal. and we have presented, senator brown, senator harkin and myself and senator harry reid not only a responsible way to pay for it, but we why have underscored and highlighted what is an egregious loophole, a tax shelter, have very clever ploy to avoid paying taxes on your wages through the mechanism of the subchapter s corporation magically converting them into dividends. well, i think we can accomplish two important public policy goals in this legislation. keeping interest rates on student loans at the current

level, helping families send their children to school, and closing a glaring loophole, a tax dodge in our tax system. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: