quorum call: mr. brown: madam

president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session. they have approval of the majority and minority leaders -- they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i want to join senator reed of rhode island who just spoke very

persuasively about -- certainly about the need to freeze interest rates for stafford loans, for college students in america, and also spoke, i thought very convincingly, about closing a tax loophole that -- that has clearly been used to avoid -- legally, but to avoid taxes by lobbyists, consulting groups, some lawyers, all of whom are making -- using this tax loophole for -- to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in many cases. the case of former senator john edwards and his law firm, not like most law firms but in his law firm and former speaker newt gingrich, one a democrat, one a republican, has shown the size of this loophole and how it can turn into tens of thousands of dollars. again, legally. i'm not accusing either of these gentlemen of illegal activity. only taking advantage of a

loophole that we should close. but i come to the floor today more to make the case of how important these stafford loans, these subsidized stafford loans are for college students. my state of ohio, similar to the presiding officer's state of north carolina, we have lots and lots of -- hundreds of thousands of students that use these stafford subsidized loans. in ohio, some 380,000. in north carolina, i assume it's a number not too far off of that, students that have seen -- have enjoyed, if that's the right word, 3.4% interest rates on their loans rather than something higher. and what's discouraging, madam president, is that this is a this was a bipartisan effort. in 2007, the year i came to the senate, the student -- president bush and democrats, the majority in both houses joining with man of our republican colleagues in this body and the house of representatives locked in the student loan subsidized stafford loan rate of 3.4% for five years

from 2007 until this july. that expires in july. it was bipartisan then, it should be bipartisan now, but a couple of days ago the republicans filibustered. i'm hopeful today that -- or whenever this next vote is taken that they won't. i encourage students, i'm going to for just three or four minutes, madam president, read a small number of letters, stories that i have gotten from students in my state of ohio who have come to my web site and told us their story. and i urge people watching today from ohio to come to this web site. it's brown.senate.gov/college loan stories. just tell us your story. because the more -- i think, madam president, that i am not so cynical that i think when my colleagues start listening to people at home, listening to students. i was at wright state near dayton the other day and

university of cincinnati and in cleveland and i met with students and listened to their stories. several of them stood up and talked about what these student loans mean. already the average student that graduates from ohio, a four-year university graduates with debt of about $27,000. that means it's much harder for them to start a family, to buy a car, to buy a home, to start a business, and that's why it's so important not to heap more burden on them, put more debt on them. i will just close, madam president, with reading three letters. cody from northwest ohio. i graduated high school with a goal in mind to get my doctorate in pharmacy. after five years of hard work, i am nine months of practice rotations away from achieving my goal. along with that achievement comes a paralyzing amount of college debt from attending a private university. i have hopes of doing an additional two years of residency to specialize in critical care trauma but since

residencies pay less than half of a pharmacist's salary, i may not be able to go further and reach that goal. help me reach my goals by keeping interest rates low by helping create affordable means by which these low-income families can attend college without having to accumulate the debt i have had to. allow youth to reach their full potential and be able to serve society in their best capacity by finding a solution to the rising cost of an education. nania from worcester, ohio, writes going to college changed my life. the only reason i even considered going to college is because my mom did. the only reason she was able to go was because of student loans. because my oldest daughter saw my mom and me doing it, she is now attending college. my family had a rough beginning. my mom and i survived sexual abuse and the disease of addiction before finding a solution. school has been her way out. my mom now has a bachelor's, is working as a licensed social worker. i'm on my way to a bachelor's as well. how can i in good conscience say

to my daughter go to college if i know she will never be able to pay off their loans? i'm a student assistant awaiting college. if it weren't for the availability of student loans, i would never have stepped foot in the building that is now the center of my world and my daughter's world. we go to school to make a better lives for ourselves. and rebecca from lorain where i lived for many years, near like eerie, when i matriculated at lawrence university, a private liberal arts college in wisconsin, my family couldn't afford to contribute more than a few hundred dollars a year to my tuition. i was pell grant eligible, i took out stafford loans. i also being took out a private loan from my parents' credit union. i committed to the full number of hours of federal work study that i was eligible for. even as a freshman, i was deeply aware that the pell grant, stafford loans and federal work study programs were giving me access to an excellent education that would have been beyond my reach. i worked hard in my classes.

i graduated with two majors, chemistry and english. i worked hard in extracurricular activities. i edited the college literary magazine, served as president of the campus feminist organization, i worked hard in my on-campus jobs, grading papers, tutoring, mixing reagents in the chemistry stockroom, washing dishes in the student union diner. i chose to go to graduate school in chemistry, i got a ph.d. at stanford in 2003. i am now a tenured professor of chemistry at oberland college in ohio. i conduct research in ovarian cancer detection that has been funded by the national institutes of health. it breaks my heart to think if i were a high school senior today i might not have the same opportunities to achieve. stafford loans, pell grants, federal work study programs. these three letters, madam president, i just -- these were not different from the others. i just picked the top three that my staff gave me from stories that we have gotten because of our web site. i will repeat the web site

again. it's brown.senate.gov/college loan stories. but this tells you about work ethic. it tells you about opportunity. i would illustrate it in one other way. i can't do it as well as nania and rebecca and cody did, but we all remember if we pay attention to american history, in the 1940's and 1950's, the g.i. bill gave literally millions of young american men and women returning from serving their country the opportunity to go to school, and what the g.i. bill did was help millions of individual americans one at a time, but what that did collectively is it raised all boats, it created a huge amount of prosperity for our country because all these people went to college. a lot of these people bought homes. the colleges were growing and expanding, creating more jobs. these people started businesses. these people were productive workers. these people invented things because they had the education to go to college. with these stafford loans, it's

not just helping cody and rebecca and rebecca's students today and nania, it's also helping all of us as society, whether you go to college or not. some people don't want to go to college. fine. we have career centers and trade schools and community colleges to learn welding, to learn carpentry, to learn how to be a health care worker, whatever people want to do or go to a four-year college. give them that opportunity. because we don't just help millions of individual americans or millions of individual young people. we help society as a whole when we do this. i just pray and beg my colleagues please pass this, keep student loan rates manageable, interest rates manageable so we can have more rebeccas and nanias and codys in our country. we will all benefit. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. bennet: thank you. madam president, during the worst recession since the great depression, which we are now fortunately coming out of, the highest the unemployment rate ever got, even at the depths of that recession, for someone with a -- for people with a college degree was 4.5%. we saw unemployment rates of 18%, 20% for certain groups of people, 4.5% if you're a college graduate. it seems to me that in view of that, in light of that -- first of all, that is an incredible stress test of the value of a college degree in this 21st century that we're living in. we ought to be making it easier, not harder for students to go to college. however, as you know, interest rates on federal student loans are scheduled to double from 3.4% to 6.8% on july 1 unless congress can get out of its own way and do the right thing. and for the life of me, i don't

know why we can't come to an agreement on this. this isn't a democratic or a republican issue. the cost of college has increased 550% since 1985. two-thirds of students in this country rely on loans to afford college. in the past decade, average student loan debt has increased by more than 25%. this, by the way, is not a function of people not doing the right thing. it's a function of the fact that median family income has continued to decline in this country for the first time in this country's history while the cost of college has escalated like crazy. and if this increase goes through, it would add thousands of dollars of debt to the more than 166,000 coloradans who currently receive federal student loans. increasing loans for students already struggling to repay their loans harms both individual students and our fragile economy. madam president, when i visited

the university of colorado at denver just last month, i heard firsthand from students about how important low interest rates are to their ability to afford college. many of the students i heard from were worried that their student loan debt would prevent them from achieving their career goals or buying a house or making other decisions that they are confronting. in colorado, the average student loan -- student graduates with more than $23,500 in debt. just in the last hour, jeremiah shared the following story with me on facebook. this is less than an hour ago. he wrote -- "i'm studying geography and environmental science with an emphasis in urban studies and planning at the university of colorado-denver. i'm the first of my family to attend college and 100% of my schooling is paid for by grants and student loans. i worry about the interest rate hike that's bound to happen this

summer and with the economy not in full recovery, i even worry more about securing a job after graduation and how to afford repayment of my loans, especially if interest rates are to increase." madam p madam president, if you know, college attendance is at a record high because there are young people all over this country, certainly in my state, that have sought refuge from economy that doesn't have jobs for them on our university campuses which is a great place for them to be. it is a great investment in them and a great investment in our future. but for jeremiah and for thousands of others, millions of other students just like him, we're threatening through our inaction to actually drive up the cost of college when that's where they need to be. and that's the reason why in the past two weeks more than 1,300 coloradans have written to my office to demand that congress act to prevent the student loan interest rate from doubling. here's just one letter i

received from kim haas from granby, colorado. she wrote vr "while i try to keep informed i don't contact my representatives. on the issue of student loan rates doubling i had to speak up. we live in rural colorado. i've been working towards becoming a professional counselor. because of our remote location i've done most online while staying home with my son. this takes a lot of self-motivation and time management skills. it also means taking on a lot of debt. please take actions necessary to prevent my rates from doubling. it's emmer immaterial per tiff o our financial, vocational and life success." her life success. i suspect that most of these students aren't all that interested in what party affiliation they're there in and i think that if they were here on this floor, which is empty today, they could use some colorado common sense to

actually get this done. and in the senate in washington today we're facing a filibuster even though we know in the end we're going to find a way to do the right thing here and keep these interest rates from rising. so once again, i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to come together and give our students all across the country the security they need to pursue their education. for them this isn't a game. for the people that came to the university of colorado at denver a month ago and shared their thoughts with me, this isn't a game. this is real life. it's their lives. it's their futures. and they're relying on us to sort this out and get it done and we should. madam president, i'd ask that next portion of my remarks appear separate from the ones that i just gave. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. while i was here i also wanted to take the opportunity to

discuss the importance of reauthorizing the export-import bank. last month while i was in colorado i had an opportunity to visit bases like coolorado, sand hill, and lightner pomo which builds gondo las for ski resorts. they're building the one installed at veil, colorado this year to mark veil's 50 -- veil, colorado's, 50th anniversary. all of these companies rely on financing from the export-import bank to help them compete in the international marketplace. while i was vividding cooler-ado, i saw literally when i was there i you what an 18-wheel truck back up to the loading dock at coolerado, to

load a bunch of their devices to be shipped to europe as coons sequence of the work they'd done at the ex-im bank. these are manufacturing jobs here in the united states, stamped made in america on the outside of these devices, and we've been unable to get this through the senate. coolerado used credit insurance to help expert the international market. we should be looking for more opportunities to support the next coolerado, or lightner-poleman. instead we've been engaged in debate about the very existence of the bank and now we're weeks away from the expiration of the bank's charlotter. i am -- charter. i am quite sure there is not a single one of our competitors around the world that are engaged in this debate.

in fact, they're engaged in absolutely the reverse, how to create more exports for their domestic industries and we should be doing the same. as we look to strengthen, to reverse that curve i talked about earlier of median family income falling and to see rising wages again in this country and create more jobs, we should be looking for opportunities to increase exports at small businesses like the ones i saw in colorado. you know, we face a profound structural issue in the economy today in this country. as i said here on the floor before, our gross domestic product is now higher than it was when we went into this recession. and productivity has been going off like a skyrocket since the early 1990's. as we've responded to competition from china and india, the use of technology to make businesses more efficient, and the recession itself, which drove productivity through the

roof because firms had to figure out how to get through these difficult times with fewer people. but median family income has fallen and we have 23 million or 24 million people in this economy who are either unemployed or underemployed. wage growth and job growth for the first time in history has decoupled from g.d.p. growth and that happened during our last recovery. under the previous administration. i make that not as a partisan observation, just the time it happened. we saw economic growth but we didn't see beige growth, and -- wage growth and we didn't see job growth and now i fear we're seeing the same sort of trend in our economy today. there are only two solutions to that or at least two important solutions to that. one is what i mentioned earlier which is education is vitally important because if you're educated, you're more likely to be able to get a job in this 21st century economy. remember, the worse the

unemployment rate got with college degree was 4.5%. but the other part of that equation is innovation. it's businesses started next week and the week after that will that will create jobs here and lift wages. it's one of the reasons i've been so glad to work with the presiding officer as we think about new ways of approaching regulations at the f.d.a. to ask the question are we driving bioscience here in the united states or driving venture capital offshore to look for other opportunities. we should be up day and night thinking about this in the united states senate because that is how we are going to bring an alignment back between the economic growth, the economists tell us we're having and the job growth and wage wroat growth the people at home want to see. you know, there is a lot of talk in this chamber about winners and losers and how the government shouldn't pick winners and losers. you hear that a lot here.

as if the current tax code isn't full of choices that have already been made about winners and losers. and a lot of those choices that have been made have been made about incumbents for the benefit of evident incumbents, not here, but incumbent enterprises, but it's the innovators that we're leaving behind. and as we think about comprehensive tax reform which i hope we get to sooner rather than later, i think on every one of these questions we should be asking ourselves is this credit or is this incentive or is this inducement more or less likely to drive job growth in the united states? to drive incomes up in the united states, to drive exports from the united states. and if the answer to that is no, we should stop doing it. this has to be more thoughtful than a fight between 2010 one narrow interest and another narrow interest. and the american people i think are demanding that and we should

respond. but in the short term the work in front of us now is to get this export-import bank bill to the floor, get it voted on and to pass it as they did in the house of representatives yesterday. madam president, i appreciate your patience and with that i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. bennet: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: i wanted to come back to the floor because the facebook page continues to be updated. phil townsend wrote in with a pressing question. here's how phil put it. if you had a loan that would take you a decade to pay off, even if you had lived as cheap as possible and only ate ramen

noodles, would you want its rate doubled? this is real life for the people we represent and we should get this sorted out. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. warner: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: madam president, i know we're on a motion to proceed to proceed to the legislation dealing with the ex-im bank, and i rise today to urge my colleagues to proceed to this bill and to move forward and pass it. and h.r. 2072, which would reauthorize the export-import bank. we have a lot of debate on this floor about how we can grow our economy and grow jobs. one of the areas where there is agreement is that if america is going to be truly competitive in

the it 1st century, we've not to -- in the 21st century, we've tbot to grow our export market. many companies were blessed with the world's largest, most vibrant, domestic mancht market. but that market is maturing. and on a going-forward basis, literally 95% of all the world's customer base lies outside the boundaries of the united states. so while many of my colleagues may disagree with many of the president's goals, i think we would all agree that doubling of exports in a five-year time frame the president laid out at the time of his administration is an area where there is great agreement. and if we're going to do that we have to use all the tools that we have available. because, unfortunately, right now american exports as a percentage of g.d.p. rank behind germany, canada, china, italy, france, the u.k., india, brazil

-- we are way, way down in the middle of the pack. as chaifort banking committee's -- as chair of the ban banking committee's international financing committee, i've spent a lot of time and effort in trying to get p thew the details -- trying to get into the details and seeing how we can make the export-import bank one of the tools we have to help american businesses grow their exports, grow that percentage of g.d.p. that depends upon trade, grow that ability to reach that 95% of the customer base around the world, and to make sure that this tool that has been a successful tool for close to 40 years gets reauthorized but loss is reauthorized in a way that brings more transparency and more accountability to this institution. the bill that we have before us hopefully later today does that, because if we fail to act, the authorization for the

export-import bank expires at the end of this month and this tool that is so important to growing exports, growing jobs candidly will be lost. the bill that we'll tank hopefully later tate -- take up hopefully later today or shortly reauthorizes the export-import bank for three years. while i would have preferred a longer extension and a higher limit, higher absolute total loan limit, i'm glad that the bill that we will deal with increases the bank's lending limit from $100 billion to $140 billion. remember, hour export-import bank is so much smaller than any of our competitors, even take the lending cap up to $140 billion will still mean we'll pale in comparison to our competitors. it is important that we compare how our export-import bank, which again in the last year made a profit, returned money to the taxpayer and has been profitable year in and year out,

how our institution compares with those of our competitors. canada, our largest trading partner, canada has a population size of one-tenth -- actually smaller than one-tenth of the united states -- has their equivalent export-import bank three tiements siz times the sir export-import bank. every day our export-import bank faces aggressive competition from china, india, which all have banks of their own right. in 2010 alone, china did $45 billion in lending. third of thatwo-thirds of that e corporation while our domestic export-import bank did just $13 billion in total. so china close to -- over 3x

supporting their institutions, one of our largest competitors larnl versus our support for our american industry at one-third the size. that same year, brazil, a country much shall much smaller than ours, had -- provided $18 billion in export finance. jearnlings more than ode $22 billion. france more than $1 billion. all much more than what we did. each of them only have in total one-fifth of our population. so why would we, as -- if we all agree that growing trade, growing exports, trying to example is that 95% of the customer base that would then support american companies, going to hire american workers, why would we unilaterally disarm and remove this tool from our toolbox as some in the house have suggested?

ironically, because in our country we don't provide, i believe, adequate export finance, many american companies have gone to foreign export agencies. the result being if they get that foreign export support, oftentimes the price of that foreign export support means that the subcontractors to those american companies then have to come from those respective countries, whether it's canada, brazil, india, et cetera. again, costing american jobs. i think this is a commonsense tool. it is a tool that has had a solid track record. it is a tool that has never cost the american taxpayers a dime. it is one that needs our immediate attention. again, i hope we will get a large, overwhelming, bipartisan majority of senators that will reauthorize the export-import bank, will reauthorize it at

this $140 billion level, will reauthorize it with the new transparency provisions that i was proud to add to this legislation, will reauthorize it with some of the new requirements the export-import bank puts together a more comprehensive business plan, all additions that i worked on with my colleagues, adding to this legislation. this is again one more example where we can demonstrate to the american people that we can come and work together, try to spur that kind of job growth and export growth that we're all looking for. with that, madam president, i will yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. kyl: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: and that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. madam president, i have been coming to the floor to discuss why free enterprise is morally superior to all other economic systems, morally superior. i have explored how free enterprise promotes the pursuit of happiness, properly understood, by emphasizing earned success, and how it lifts up the poor by raising living standards. today i want to look at another way preenterprise lifts up the poor -- free enterprise lifts up the poor by promoting the moral principles that make people more charitable and more socially responsible. this perspective sharply contrasts with president obama's campaign narrative about social responsibility. he and many of his supporters paint free enterprise as a system that inherently clashes

with social responsibility. in his telling, free enterprise is a system that mainly promotes gordon gecko style greed, a system that must be reformed through higher taxes and larger government. most of the policies he has supported during the last three years demonstrate this perspective. the size and scope of the federal government has increased dramatically during his presidency. as he campaigns to get re-elected, his main theme is that the only way some americans can do better is if the government makes others worse off. there is an important counterargument to this negative narrative. in a new book called "the road to freedom," american enterprise institute president arthur brooks provides a comprehensive explanation of the morality of free enterprise and how it makes everyone better off by creating a more positive society. as brooks writes, the principles that underpin free enterprise

are moral principles such as honesty, industriousness, thrift and opportunity. those principles make people more virtuous, not less. participants in free enterprise, for example, must be able to trust those with whom they do business, that they will honor their contracts by promoting greater us it and integrity, free markets promote the social and psychological linchpin of democratic prosperity. brooks elaborates, and i quote -- "the free enterprise system requires a culture of optimism and trust to function correctly. a positive sum, win-win mentality, and a desire for everyone to be better off, everyone to be better off. for many people, it produces more prosperity than they need to meet their daily requirements, a surplus that they will choose to direct to

charitable purposes." end of quotation. the prosperity and positive outlook that stem from free enterprise encourages people to help the neediest and most vulnerable members of society. indeed, it is no coincidence that the united states is a more charitable country than those with bigger welfare states. those who believe in and have benefited from the free enterprise system believe that everyone should have the opportunity to prosper, and they're willing to help take responsibility for lifting others up. charitable giving appears to be part of most americans' d.n.a., arthur brooks writes. americans are remarkably generous, not only toward our fellow citizens but those suffering abroad as well. on a per-capita basis, we give three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the french. seven times as much as the germans, and 14 times as much as

italians. these findings correlate to volunteering as well. 70% to 80% of americans donate money to charity each year. these donations add up to about $300 billion annually. the money goes to religious causes and also to secular activities such as education, health care and social welfare. americans also donate large amounts of their time to help the less fortunate among us. indeed, there is a strong correlation between beliefs about the size of government and attitudes toward giving. as brooks shows, those who believe in limited government give more to charity than those who hold more statist views. that makes sense. after all, a statist might argue that paying high levels of taxation is the equivalent of giving a lot to charity, since the government spends a large

portion of its total revenue on social programs. by contrast, free marketers would argue that government spending tends to crowd out private charity in ways that are both socially and fiscally harmful. americans take well-justified pride in their charitable giving, both in aggregate and relative terms, we are the most generous society the world has ever known. as budget and tax debates move forward, we must remember that raising the top marginal tax rates could conceivably reduce charitable giving because the biggest philanthropists would have less money to donate. this is just one of the many unintended and undesirable consequences that could result from a massive tax hike that is scheduled to take effect at the end of this year. if excessively high rates of taxation were the best way to cultivate a more generous and socially conscious citizenry,

then europeans would give more to charity than americans, but that's simply not the case. america's record on charitable giving demonstrates that free enterprise is the best way to boost charitable giving and foster the civic virtues that underpin a broadly shared prosperity. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: without objection, i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. paul: the ordinary middle-class family is struggling to get a home loan. tens of thousands of homeowners have lost their homes or are struggle to make payments on their home loans. meanwhile, congress steadily dishes out billions of dollars in taxpayer-subsidized loans to large, profitable companies. 80% of these loans, these export-import loans, are given to companies that are in the fortune 500. so we're giving taxpayer loans to very profitable companies. i'm a great believer in capitalism, in the jobs that corporations create. i defend profit and the benefit that accrues from leaving that profit large any in the private

sector. i'm not one who clamors for punitive taxes, i'm not someone who thinks we need to punish corporations, but at the same time don't constliew to mean that i believe we should be subsidizing profitable corporations. i don't think taxpayer-subsidized loans should go to profitable companies. now, president obama has been passing out loans to his campaign donors. he's been using a campaign trough that he has set up over at the department of energy. very wealthy multimillionaires and billionaires are getting loans through the department of energy -- solyndra, brightsource, people heavily involved in the president's campaign have been getting subsidized loans. republicans have been rightly criticizing the president for these loans, for these department of energy loans. to solyndra, brightsource and others. republicans have been correct in criticizing the president for

trying to pick the winners and losers in the energy production. yet now a majority of the republicans are poised to vote for their own set of taxpayer-subsidized loans through the export-import bank. in fact, they want to increase the export-import loansly nearly 50% and pick the winners and losers thousand in the export business -- now in the export business. the horse traders may disdain consistency, but the american people value principled and consistent opposition to deficit financing. the american people know hypocrisy when they see it. the american people know corporate welfare when they see it. the export-import bank in fact provided an $^18 million to a steel mill in china. our steel industry has been in decline for decades, and i would loan $18 million to our competitors? who in their right mind would subsidize our chinese

competitors with loans? it makes no sense. do you think of anything more insulting than loaning money to our competitors? well, come to think of it, i might. we actually give foreign aid to china. we actually send china economic development assistance. is it any wonder that congress has an 11% approval rating? many americans are trying to hang on to their homes, struggling to make their payments on their own home mortgage, while very profitable big business is being given subsidized loans by the government. is it makes no sense. what gives? to add insult to injury, we are borrowing money from the same countries that we are lending the money to, so we borrow money from india, because i would run a deficit of the over $1 trillion a year, we borrow known from india and then we're sending it back to them in the form of taxpayer-subsidized loans. it makes no sense. ex-im loans like the loans to

solyndra and brightsource are simply forms of crony capitalism. with trillion dollar annual deficits, surely we can vote to end corporate welfare. if companies are making billions of dollars in profit, can we at least end the welfare that we're sending to these corporations? i urge a vote against reauthorizing the ex-im bank, and i hope my republican colleagues will see the inconsistency of criticizing the president on one hand for his crony captai capitalism and then turning around and doing the same thing. so i support not reauthorizing the export-import bank, admitting that it is -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. hatch: i rise to discuss the west act which i introduced with my good friend and colleague from wyoming, senator barrasso. this bill is an outgrowth of our work with the western -- senate western caucus and the congressional western caucus. these groups which include my good friend from utah,

congressman roy bishop and congressman steve pearce from new mexico are truly leading the way. we've been doing the hard work of identifying solutions that will promote job creation, boost america's energy production and put our nation on a better fiscal footing by encouraging economic growth. we keep hearing from the democrat leadership that congress is dysfunctional. that may be, but it is not because of a lack of good ideas. it is because in an effort to help the president in his reelection and shield vulnerable democrats, the decision was made to promote politically motivated showboats rather than sound job-creating legislation. americans don't want higher taxes in the name of redistribution and government-dictated fairness. they don't want bureaucrats in washington figuring out how to spread the wealth around as then-candidate obama did -- or put it in 2008. what they want is economic opportunity and the security that comes with it.

they want the freedom and opportunity to pursue new ventures, start new businesses and save for their retirement and for their children's education. if the democratic leadership ever decides to listen to the american people and advance reasonable legislation to grow the economy and create jobs, they could start with this west act. the west act is a sound and solid bill, one that puts together some of the best ideas identified by the western caucuses. and my hope is that it will meet with bipartisan support here in the senate. this bill could not come at a better time. the proposals in the west act will go a long way toward generating the employment and economic growth that citizens and taxpayers are longing for. the proposals in the west act should not be controversial here in the senate. the president claimed that his trillion-dollar stimulus would create or save millions of americans jobs. as it turned out, this was a hollow promise.

but the west act is the real deal. and if the president and his party are serious about stimulating the economy, this legislation is a good way to do it and good place to start. the bills senator barrasso and i have included in this west act have all passed the house of representatives. they are commonsense, progrowth policies, and i am confident that these policies if put to the vote of the american people would pass overwhelmingly. they certainly would in my home state of utah. they should pass the senate as well. the bill has three main objectives: first, we are going to put america back to work by producing more american energy. our bill ends the obama administration's de facto moratorium on drilling in the gulf of mexico in a safe, responsible and transparent manner. we set firm guidelines for considering permits to drill, and we require the administration to move forward promptly to conduct offshore lease sales that have been

delayed or canceled in the gulf and outer continental shelf. the west act sets a production goal of three million barrels of oil per day by 2027, reducing foreign imports by nearly one-third. and at a time when every job counts, our bill would produce thousands of high-paying jobs. second, our bill will help bring down energy prices, making it easier for americans to drive their cars and heat their homes. we could produce over one million barrels of oil a day with our bill's elimination of confusion and uncertainty surrounding the e.p.a.'s decision-making process for clean air permits. the bill prohibits the e.p.a. administrator from promulgating any regulation that takes into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas in order to address climate change using the clean air act. and, third, our bill will protect agriculture by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

it amends the federal insecticide, fungicide and rhodendocide act. this provision of the bill will also ensure that diseases like the west nile virus can be managed through mosquito abatement. it is very important for communities in utah to be able to address these issues without constantly seeking approval from federal overlords. the bill also stops the e.p.a. from imposing more stringent dust standards each year, for one year. additionally, it would afford states and localities the flexibility to address any rural dust issues before the federal government would have the authority to do so. for the life of me, i do not understand the administration's stance on energy production.

the department of energy claims that there are more than 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil and oil shale in utah, wyoming and colorado. this is more than the proven reserves the saudi arabia. if we were able to develop this resource the way we are capable of doing, we could have a major impact on the jobless rate as well as the cost of energy in our country. last month one of the largest oil companies in the world announced a $200 million investment in a commercial demonstration project for oil shale. the project will be in my home state using technology developed by a utah company. another major company that has been successfully developing commercial oil shale for more than 80 years is opening offices in salt lake city and seeking permits for a very large facility in my home state of utah. the state of utah, local governments and the business community support the development of these resources.

yet, the president and his administration are working to stop this at all costs. the most recent roadblock was the rewriting of the final 2008 three-state programmatic impact statement to cut back the federal lands available for oil shale and oil sands development. i believe strongly that interior secretary salazar has no authority whatsoever to take that action. i recently heard from an energy company in utah that it is easier to do business in somalia than it is in the united states. unfortunately, that is not a surprising sentiment, but that is what we have come to expect from president obama. he talks a big game about fairness when it comes to raising taxes, but his energy policies are both regressive and elitist. in the interest of appealing to the environmental interests of his wealthy supporters, the

administration leaves middle-class people behind, obstructing domestic energy production prevents the creation of high-paying jobs that provide good wages for families. it fails to bring down the high cost of fuel that hits middle-and lower-income families the hardest. president obama's energy agenda tops the list of pernicious policies that hurt american families, hinder economic growth and harm businesses by dramatically raising the costs of every day life. the administration's position is clear. the president wants to drive up the cost of gasoline and drive americans out of their cars. in 2008, when the president still harbored grandiose plans of changing the course of world history, his energy secretary chu said that his goal was to -- quote -- "boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." in the meantime the president and his party suffered a humiliating defeat in the 2010

elections, and now faced with the prospect of going the way of president carter this fall, the administration is trying to walk back this position. with voters facing $4 a gallon gasoline, secretary chu now claims he is doing everything he can to reduce the price of energy. and the president's advisorses are suggest that this is just a gotcha quote. it isn't. it represents the real view of the president and those in his bubble. the price of gasoline was no big deal to the president prior to being elected to the senate and the white house. his short commute from his hyde park house might not even have required a car. his wealthiest supporters, those being appealed to with his antienergy agenda, do not spend a significant amount of their income on gasoline. and when warren buffett flies in his private jet to meet with the president to discuss plans for raising taxes on small

businesses, he is not worried about the cost of jet fuel. but for families that are now spending nearly $100 to fill up their cars, the cost of gasoline is a big deal. members of the president's party seem to get this. even here in the senate we see democrat support for the president's decision to hold up the keystone pipeline collapsing. and for good reason. the president's unilaterally decision to kill that project might play well at midtown manhattan fund-raisers where wealthy elites have the luxury of supporting a radical environmental agenda without worrying about the real-world consequences of that agenda for the middle class. but it was bad for jobs, bad for the economy, and bad for american families. mr. president, president obama said that he wants to find an "all of the above" approach to energy production. he need look no further than the west end. having said that, i would like to personally compliment my dear

friend and colleague, senator barrasso from wyoming. he's the leader of our western caucus. and frankly, we couldn't have a better leader. he understands these issues very, very well. we in the west understand that we have an obligation and we have the ability to be able to help this country, from an energy standpoint, in ways that it needs help. we have the ability to be able to help save this country, and we intend to do so. this west act would be a very good step in that direction. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i rise to echo the comments made by my colleague, senator orrin hatch of utah. mr. president, throughout senator hatch's distinguished career, he has served this senate and this nation in a number of major leadership capacities. i am most grateful for his ongoing leadership and the position that he has taken in

the senate western caucus, that of being chairman of the caucus' subcommittee on public lands. senator hatch along with senator moran and i have laid out a clear path to energy security and job creation. the bill is called the western energy security today act. or the west act. president obama told congress that he would, and he said -- quote -- "keep trying every new idea that works," he said. he went on to say that he would listen to every good proposal no matter which party comes up with it. well, western republicans last year laid out a clear path to energy security and job creation for the western united states and for the country. it is called the jobs frontier report, breaking down washington's barriers to america's red, white, and blue jobs. mr. president, president obama should listen to and embrace the findings in this report.

the house of representatives has cast key pieces of legislation over the past year from this jobs frontier report. these are pieces of legislation that will begin to generate quality jobs and increase u.s. energy production. these bills tackle key critical issues such as encouraging energy exploration and production, removing unnecessary e.p.a. regulations. this legislation would create thousands of, thousands, mr. president, thousands of jobs for americans. the west act contains language from eight of these bills already passed by the house that were part of the jobs frontier original report. this legislation accomplishes many of the goals in the jobs frontier report. it does it by increasing atpobl american -- affordable american injuring, by promoting agriculture and ranching and by overturning washington's regulatory overreach. the bottom line is that this act

is ready to create jobs now. today. and to set the nation on the path to becoming more energy secure. so i'm here, mr. president, to congratulate senator hatch for bringing this important bill forward, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from wyoming. he has been such a great addition to the united states senate. he has an intimate knowledge of western lands and their productivity and what they could do if we were given the opportunity. he is just an all-around good human being. so i feel very grateful for his leadership. i really express my support for his leadership of the western caucus. he is one of the finest people here, and i just personally want to thank him for his kind remarks that he has just made. mr. president, i yield the

floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i would like unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, earlier this week, the conference committee on the surface transportation reauthorization, more commonly known as the highway bill, met for its initial meeting. in the opening remarks that were made on tuesday, it was encouraging that there seemed to be a general agreement on how important that transportation bill is to our nation. as i will describe later, it's 2.9 million jobs that are associated with this bill. i should be specific and say 2.9 million job years, since those jobs do not extend for eternity. but it's the most important

piece of jobs legislation we could consider. i appreciated hearing from the senator from utah about the jobs concern of his energy proposal. these are real jobs, they are immediate jobs, they are jobs that everybody understands, building our roads, highways and bridges. these local construction jobs are not only important in and of themselves but they also help maintain the transportation infrastructure that lowers the cost of goods and helps our economy across the board. we have had to close a bridge where i-95 crosses over the blackstone river in pawtucket. it is reopening, but in the meantime, people had to drive around 295 and that cost time and fuel for shippers and delay, and it was an economic cost. so this really is the real jobs bill that we can do something about and it is pending right

now in conference. so it's imperative not only that the conference get this bill done but that they get it done as soon as possible. why do i say that? well, there was a deadline of march 31 to get a new bill done, and the house of representatives unfortunately did not pass a highway bill by the march 31 deadline, so on the eve of the single-payeration of that deadline, they -- eve of the expiration of that deadline, they passed an extension and we are operating under that and a subsequent extension right now. the effect of that is not good for jobs. state departments of transportation and the private sector companies that provide the services that rebuild our roads and highways can't make

long-range plans when funding is based on short-term extensions. particularly in this economy, our states, our counties and the companies that do this business simply can't afford to extend themselves on contracts and on work where they don't know that the highway funding is going to be there to backstop them when it comes time to make the payments. so in many instances for many projects, a short-term extension actually requires the underlying construction project to be dropped. in rhode island, our state department of transportation led by transportation director michael lewis, who is a very capable and experienced individual, they have shown me their list of 96 major projects that they plan to do this year, but because of the uncertainty

here over the highway bill because the conference has not produced a result yet, because we're still operating under the extension, he says that about 40 of those projects may have to be shelved, because until we get the bill done, he can't count on federal funds being there to help pay for them. so every day, every week that goes by without a highway bill costs us jobs. it doesn't just postpone the jobs. it actually costs us jobs. the at-risk projects range from things as simple as lane striping to road repaving to major bridge repairs. what they all have in common is that each one of these transportation projects means jobs for the construction workers that build them, the engineers that design them and the companies that supply the materials. it's not just me saying this.

standard and poor's recently published a report warning, warning us that unpredictable federal funding could stall our national transportation projects. i'll quote from the report." as construction season begins in the northern half of the country, this continuing uncertainty in funding could force states to delay projects rather than risk funding changes or political gridlock come july. they continue in another quote -- "once a long-term authorization is approved, we believe it will provide an impetus for transportation agencies to reconsider high-priority projects that had been shelved because of lack of funding. but if the authorization is extended by even more continuing resolutions, such high-priority

projects will remain in limbo. so as time goes by, jobs evaporate. continuing delays in transportation funding are putting this year's construction season at risk and are making it impossible for states to keep their construction projects moving. so it is not enough that we pass a highway bill out of this conference. it is imperative that we pass it soon. there have been enough delays already. we were supposed to have gotten this done on march 31 except that the house never actually passed a highway bill. the senate bill fortunately provides a solid framework for action and for rapid action. this senate transportation bill called map 21 first off passed out of the environment and public works committee last

year. it passed out of the environment and public works committee on a bipartisan basis, indeed on a unanimous basis. there is not a lot that every member of the environment and public works committee agrees on. there is not a lot, frankly, that our chairman barbara boxer and our ranking member jim inhofe agree on, but we all agree that this was an important piece of legislation and reported it out of the committee on a unanimous basis. then the bill came to the floor. there were no fast tracks, there was no hide the ball. this bill spent five weeks on the senate floor. there were a great number of amendments that were considered during that period of deliberation. i believe the total is at 40. were accepted either by vote or by agreement. after that long, open, transparent, robust legislative process in which republicans and

democrats both contributed, the bill passed with a strong bipartisan support of 75 senators. that's pretty unusual around here. map-21 is projected to save or create 1.9 million jobs. as i said, those are not jobs that last for eternity. the convention, i believe, is that they also for a year. 1.9 million jobs with the potential to create an additional million jobs through the increased investment in the tifia financing program. so a total of 2.9 million jobs. in rhode island, that means that the bill is expected to save or create up to 9,000 jobs, and if its provision for projects of national and regional significance is incorporated in the final bill and if funding is provided through our appropriations process, that number actually goes up, because

some additional projects can be added that are overdue in rhode island for work. so map-21, the senate highway bill, is a true compromise bill. it reflects the hard work of chairman boxer and senator inhofe and it is strong bipartisan signal from this body as to how our transportation bill should -- what it should look like. procedurally, the conference committee is reconciling this senate bipartisan compromise bill with basically an empty envelope of a bill, a 90-day extension passed by the house with an authorization to conference and some controversial provisions thrown in, unfortunately, that will make things more difficult and slower to get done. and more difficult and slower is

not good when you're talking about passing a highway bill and the construction season is already beginning to get under way. the most sensible action and the one in the best interests of our country, the one in the best interests of our economy, the one in the best interests of our infrastructure, the one in the best interests of jobs in these construction projects would be for the conference committee to report out the bipartisan senate bill. without a lot of controversial riders so that we can get a long-term reauthorization signed into law while there is still a full construction season ahead and get hard-working americans back to work rebuilding, as every american knows we need to do, rebuilding our nation's beat up and decrepit transportation infrastructure. so i am pleased that the conference is off to a good start. i'm sorry that we had to wait this long to get to this point. it would be nice to have had this done on march 31 when the

deadline came, but now that we are here, i urge all the conferees to come to a quick resolution that honors the extensive bipartisan work that went into the senate bill that has gotten us to this point. with that, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i'm here today to speak, i believe, for the great majority of americans who believe that the time is long overdue for the federal government to fulfill its commitment, its responsibility to end the lawlessness at our borders. only once we do that can we put

this matter, the deep frustrations that are occurring behind us, move our country forward in a positive and united way. immigration security is especially important in these economic times. illegal labor does in fact depress wages, makes it more difficult for out-of-work americans to find good-paying jobs. immigration security also is vital to stopping cartels who are creating violence around our borders and in our cities. the federal government has a duty to protect those living in communities which suffer every day from preventable drug and gang violence, and there's nothing compassionate about looking the other way when we can take concrete actions to make our schools and communities safer in every part of the country. there's nothing compassionate about a policy which makes it harder to protect immigrants who

are in our country and americans in our country from gang violence that's often starting at our border today. unfortunately, instead of compelling sanctuary jurisdictions like the city of chicago to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers, the administration has instead gone after those straightstateswho are trying toe federal government to reduce the lawlessness in our country. under new guidelines, the department of homeland security doesn't consider someone a priority that -- individuals' deportation proceedings are closed and they're allowed to remain in the country. so far the administration has granted this form of backdoor amnesty to almost 17,000 aliens illegally in the country. some of which are convicted. -- convicted of crimes.

the administration has also been resistant to the popular everify program, never once including it in any of its jobs or economic plans. ize, thi.c.e. has ended workfore operations meaning that employers can continue to hire illegal workers rather than out-of-work americans. a determined president could take meaningful steps to stem the tide of illegality. and i have been encouraged by governor romney's commitments on this issue. this is something i've worked at for sometime, and i am sliewrl - absolutely convinced that with smart, effective leadership and a commitment on behalf of this country to end the lawlessness, it can be done, done quicker, and with less difficulty than most people realize. for example, governor romney

recounted the following conversation he had with a border patrol agent, and it is so similar to ones i've had with mr. bonner, who heads the border patrol association. this is what they told him. this is what -- request"when employers are willo hire people who are here illegally, that he is a nag net and it draws people in. and sanctuary cities giving tuition breaks to the kids of illegal aliens. those things have to be stopped if we want to secure the border, we have to make sure we have a fence determining where the people are, enough agents to oversee it and turn off that magnet. we can't talk about amnesty. we cannot give a amnesty to thoe who have come here i willly." it's what governor romney said he was told by the agents who have to deal with this every day and who try to do their job professionally,

and i think that's correct. that's what they're telling me. that's what law enforcement officers have told me for some time. another example of how our country is so out of control is this government's failure to fairly uphold the rule of law with regard to earned-income tax credit. the treasury department, the united states treasury department's own inspector general who analyzes problems within the agency and issues reports, reported that in 2010 the internal revenue service paid illegal aliens a staggering $4.2 billion in child tax credits for dependents that don't even live in the country. and this has been going on for years. it cannot continue. it must be stopped.

it can't be delayed, the fixing of it. the treasury i.g. report states -- quote -- "although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the united states from receiving most federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the additional child tax credit, a refundable tax credit intended for working families. the payment of federal funds through this tax credit benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside and work in the united states without authorization, which directly contradicts federal law and policy to remove such incentives." close quote. that's the inspector general of the u.s. treasury department. not my language. and, of course, that's exactly

correct. that's exactly correct. how could it be otherwise? in the press report from indiana, one of the illegal aliens admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who don't even live there. those four workers claimed 20 children live inside that one residence. and as a result, the internal revenue service sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling $29,608. a tax credit is not a tax deduction. it's a direct payment, direct transfer of wealth through the tax system to an individual. $29,608. the treasury report inspector general stated -- quote -- "millions of people are seeking

this tax credit who we believe are not entitled to it. we have made recommendations to the internal revenue service as to how they could address this issue, and they have not taken sufficient action, in our view, to solve the problem. well, that's not acceptable. $4 billion is a great deal of money. $4 billion a year is about $10 million a day. that's what they found so far, that receiving this one benefit illegally. and people are wondering about hot tubs in las vegas, giving $500 million loans to failed solyndra companies. what are we doing here in washington? so, i say, madam president, it is time to end this. i would note that the house of

representatives in their legislation has voted to end this. so it's now time to see what this senate will do. we need to act to end it also. so it seems every few years i've been in the senate for now 15-plus years, and being on the judiciary committee, we've seen the debate over immigration move forward, and sometimes encouragingly and sometimes discouragingly. but every few years it seems that washington masters who have willfully and deliberately failed to follow through on consistent promises that we would end immigration illegality begin to discuss some form of amnesty. they continue to incentivize the illegality but remain unwilling to take the necessary steps --

not impossible, steps that can be done -- to secure the border on behalf of all citizens. for example, just this week my good friend and able senator, senator durbin, said that the dream act is a bill that says if you graduate from high school and you have no serious problems when it comes to convictions or moral issues, and you either complete service in the military or two years in college, we will put you on a path to becoming legal and becoming a citizen. close quote. but we've examined that legislation. in this most recent version, it would really in effect grant amnesty to millions of people here illegally, regardless of whether they go on to finish high school, finish college or serve in the military. that's what the legislation does, the one that senator durbin has previously supported. and the bill is certainly not limited to children. it would apply to illegal

immigrants who are in their 30's now. and because the bill has no cap, no limit, no sunset, no ending, would remain -- allow people to remain eligible for the rest of their lives at any age to claim this benefit. and once they're naturalized, those granted dream act amnesty would then have the right to legally petition for entry into the united states their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who caused their illegal presence in the united states to begin with. easily tripling the number of green cardholders. this is a big issue. we need to be careful about these things. we need to consider what we're doing here. so the bill's provisions are so broad, they are open to those who have even multiple misdemeanor criminal

convictions. that could include drunk driving and certain sexual offenses. but the bill goes further, offering safe harbor protection from, to those here illegally, those who have pending deportation proceedings against them. those deportation proceedings have to stop, even when the individual might propose a risk to americans when that deportation may be based on pending serious crimes. this is especially dangerous because the safe harbor would also apply to those from regions in the middle east. in fact, the dream act altogether ignores the lessons of 9/11 going so far as to open eligibility to those who previously defrauded immigration authorities, as did many of those 9/11 hijackers. so, you say, well, jeff, what are we going to do?

what can we do here? you say, no, no, but we need to have a plan. we need to do something. please, colleagues, think this through. the way forward for our country, the right way, the way to end the bitterness and develop common solutions for all residents is first secure the border as americans have asked this congress and this government to do year after year after year after year. and this congress and this administration has failed to do so. we must rebuild the trust, that trust with the american people before other actions are taken. how commonsensecal is that? people have the right to believe we will promise enforcement and give amnesty. that's been the pattern.

we give the amnesty, but don't do the enforcement. that's why people are upset with washington. why shouldn't they be? it's gone on for several decades. it's gone on since i've been in the senate every year. we've got to follow through on the commitments that have been made to the public to do what we promised. it is time to end the lawlessness, not surrender to it. with determined leadership from the white house, support in the congress, we can in just a few years, i'm totally convinced, solve the problem at our border, restore the rule of law, put an end to the border violence, create a sane, just, and lawful system of immigration for america, a system that we can be proud of, a system which befits a nation as great as ours. madam president, i thank the chair, would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

commonsense cal,

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: with summer approaching, the travel season will soon be in full swing, and

this week when celebrate national travel and tourism week. it's a time to call attention to the importance that travel and tourism plays in our national economy and in the creation of jobs, and i know the president understands this issue very clearly because his state of alaska, like the state of new hampshire, has travel and tourism is a very important industry. and the fact is that the travel and tourism industry is one of n industries in 48 states and it supports over 14 million american jobs. in new hampshire, travel and tourism is our second largest industry and it supports over 60,000 jobs in new hampshire. the travel promotion act, which congress passed in 2008 and which i was very proud to be one of the cosponsors, will help the united states compete for foreign travelers.

this year we will begin to see the impact of this landmark legislation. for most of our history, the united states has been one of a very few developed countries that did not advertise overseas. the travel promotion act changes all of that. because it created what is called brand u.s.a. it's a low-cost, public-private partnership, and brand u.s.a. has just started rolling out an advertising campaign for america. brand u.s.a. is going to leverage millions of dollars in contributions to the private sector to help encourage more foreign travelers to bring their dollars to the united states. and this is important because what we've learned in new hampshire is that overseas visitors tend to stay longer when they get to america, and they tend to spend more money.

so this advertising is going to be the first time that we're going to be advertising overseas to attract visitors to come to the united states. but there's even more that we can and should do working together to support the travel sector. travel and tourism rely on a good infrastructure, on keeping our highways, our bridges, our airports running. that's essential for the travel industry to grow. that's why it was so important that this year after many years of trying we finally reauthorized the f.a.a., and with that legislation are putting in place a new next-gen system of air traffic control that's going to allow our airplanes to get from point to point faster and more efficiently. and that's why it's so critical that we pass the highway bill that is pending in congress. that's at a committee of conference. we've passed that bill in the

senate on an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and now we need to get this bill out of the congress. we also need to look at ways to improve our visa system so that we can make it easier for foreign travelers come to the united states. we need to pass legislation, and there are several bills that have been introduced, that will help us clear the backlogs of these applications so that we can make sure that those travel horse want to come to the united states are going to be able to do so. again, bearing in mind that those overseas visitors tend to stay longer and spend more money. so, mr. president, i want to conclude by highlighting what is an exciting new exaimp in new hampshire to help build new hampshire's reputation as a world-class travel destination with something to offer for everyone. i know that a lot of people have been to new hampshire every four

years as part of our presidential primary, that a lot of people are familiar with our state's slow began, "live free or die." this slogan captures what was uttered by general john stark, a revolutionary war general, talking about the british during the revolution. just a few days ago our state division of travel and tourism development launched a new campaign to promote new hampshire. to show the world what we have to offer as a unique travel destination, and that campaign very cleverly plays on our famous state slogan. so we can see in this advertisement, "live free and explore." it's one of our beautiful lakes. we can see the family out canoeing.

we also have another one, "live free and reconnect" a family out hiking, we can see some of our mountains in the background, not quite as high as the mountains in alaska, but we think they're a great place for families to come and explore, hikers can enjoy, you can reconnect and relax. this one is "live free and discover." again, kids getting ready to jump into one of our lakes. we can see the wilderness in the background. another great example of one of the opportunities that new hampshire has to enjoy our beautiful state. so we're very proud of what new hampshire has to offer. we have a new logo that shows how you can visit our travel and tourism sight on the web and see

what thamp has to offer. -- new hampshire has to offer. we open all who come to experience our presidential primary will come back and maybe look at what we have to offer for enjoying the natural beauty and activities of the state. now we would like that but i understand all of us here in washington have very busy schedules and this finding time to travel is difficult, but fortunately, soon we're going to have a great opportunity for everyone on the hill to experience what new hampshire has to offer without even leaving the building. on june 6, the new hampshire state society and our office are going to be hosting a recession called "experience new hampshire." it's a great opportunity to experience new hampshire's signature hospitality, our history, our culture, and our scenic beauty. i invite all of my colleagues to

enjoy new hampshire beverages, to taste some of the menus from historic grand hotels and charming inns and come and berate celebrate with us. so as we celebrate travel and tourism this week, i hope all of us will take a few minutes to reflect on the importance of this industry to our state and local economies and to the country. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: