and it is not surprise we have a problem with obesity. not just the quantity of food we eat, it is the quality of food we eat. we eat a lot of junk food. you're thinking right now maybe i have come to the

wrong conference by accident? no, i think there is strong connection between our attitudes towards food and the attitude towards the pentagon. the pentagon has gone on enormous eating spree over the last decade and grown enormous. this conversation about what is it for has not taken place. yes. we haven't had a conversation among nato allies why we should be cutting this and cutting that. but we also haven't had a conversation about why we spent this money in the first place. that is the conversation we should be having. right now here in the united states we have basically three approaches to the obesity problem facing nato and u.s. spending. and the three options are basically this. they were alluded to in the last panel and i will go over them very briefly. essentially the republicans laid out various options for eating more. in other words the house has offered a proposal to add $4

billion on top of what the pentagon has asked for. okay. we know this proposal coming from the house republicans is not going anywhere in the senate but it is a good indication where the political tenor is and what that faction of the republican believes is a solution to the problem that faces us. they have also put forward an alternative to sequestration. i won't go into that. if we look at mitt romney's campaign he basically said we should spend and this is an estimate, as much as $2.1 trillion over the next decade than what the obama administration for instance has laid out. 2.1 dral trillion more. want to emphasize that, mo, more the not cutting more. what is the obama administration's proposal? more or less stay the course. all the talk of the obama administration making significant cuts in the military, not really. i mean if we look over next

10 years, about 500, $600 billion but spread over 10 years and given inflation and so on, it is really not all that much in terms of cuts. what's the third option? the third option of course is the gastric bypass. the fact that pentagon can't be expected to deal with this problem by itself. there must be much more radical surgical solutions to this problem. we, it is not just a partisan thing. of course tom coburn, republican, rather conservative republican came out with a proposal over the summer to cut one trillion dollars in military spending, which i thought was quite remarkable. we, at the institute for policy studies where i work put out the unified security budget where we come up with a detailed list not only cuts we think can be made without endangering the security, we have to repeat that, without endangering the security of the united states but also where the

money could be usefully applied to promote nonmilitary approaches to resolving conflicts. beefing up, in other words, various existing structures within the state department and other parts of the u.s. government. and of course i haven't heard anybody refer to the poll done recently just a week ago by pepa and two other polling firms that showed where u.s. public attitudes are about military spending. they found in fact that the u.s. public, republicans and democrats are far more radical what they support in terms of military cuts, an average 18% immediate annual cut in military spending. so what are the implications on this of nato, the here in the united states? the possibility of perhaps,

more significant cuts in u.s. military spending although again as i want to emphasize we're not seeing that immediately with what the obama administration's proposing but if sequestration goes through and we're forced to do it then we might see some significant cuts. what would be the implications? well first of all, hooray, the cold war is over. finally nato would have to face the fact that it doesn't need these weapon systems which were designed to fight a cold war. tactical nuclear weapons? do we really need those? the danish submarines i think you referred to, do we really need those? those brigades we're planning on removing from europe, did we really need those? did we need all the u.s. military bases in europe which were designed for the cold war? nato would be forced to face a reality that the cold war ended 20 years ago. second, that we would see, i

would hope and there was some discussion of this already at this conference, an emphasis on nonmilitary solutions. i was saddened way long time ago, 20 years ago, when the csce, when it was the csce was radically de-emphasized in favor of nato in the wake of the collapse of the soviet union and communism. that was, i'm regretful today as i was then, a an option, i'm sorry, that we didn't pursue. beefing up the, what became the osce. in the previous panel one. presenters talked about why the e.u. in comparison to nato wasn't particularly effective? look at budgets? jeez. if the e.u. or osce had as much money available as nato perhaps they could be effective with things they were talking about,

anti-piracy, et cetera. squeezing out waste and redundancy. i would love to see someone like mitt romney in his capacity at bain capital take an axe to the waste and redundancy in nato. we see it in the private sector. we see it when people like mitt romney go to corporations why don't we see it at nato? i think this kind of financial environment is perfect for such a, an axe-wielder of that nature to go at nato in terms of waste and redundancy. there could potentially reduce russian anxieties if we're spending less in terms of nato overall. that might be a good way of sitting down at table with the russianses hey, you don't have to worry about us so much. yeah we're pursuing missile defense, et cetera, but obviously we're taking a very serious position on reducing spending within nato.

finally there are two aspects that mitigate or militate against this happy news from my point of view, happy news, not necessarily happy news for everybody here. one is we have a tendency to export our problems. we export our obesity problem by selling corn syrup all over the world. no surprise, we sell our arms as well and over the last two years the obama administration has begun to reevaluate our export control regulations to facilitate greater arms exports. why? i mean the reasons are obvious. if our military contractors have fewer opportunities to get pentagon contracts, well, we will, i.e., the obama administration will do whatever it can to facilitate the sale of arms overseas to satisfy the bottom line of those military contractors. number two of course is and

what we've talked about, burden-sharing. i was surprised to see the that canada was on the list of nato allies that were chastised by evo dauleder for not pulling their weight. he said canada was part of the majority that was exerting an unfair burden on those who spend the resources. now canada is the sixth largest spender within nato and its military budget went from 15 billion to 20 three billion between 2005 and 2011. so here we have a country actually increasing or, up until recently, increasing its military spending and it too has come under attack. so the pressure by the united states on our nato allies to increase military spending is countervailing pressure here unfortunately. again i would like to have, i like to promote this idea having a conversation not just about sharing

capabilities but fundamentally about why we are maintaining these capabilities, upgrading these capabilities or even creating new capabilities. i think we have to have that conversation within nato. ultimately, and i will end here, ultimately it is easier to diet together and i think that the united states and its nato allies and i won't refer to snow white here but ultimately we have to work together to coordinate these reductions rather than spending so much energy to try to figure out why we have to keep spending at the unsustainable rate that we've been spending over the last decade. thank you very much. >> john, thank you very much. i can't help myself going back to snow white. i have a seven-year-old at the moment so i watch disney movies. thank you for setting out that diet regime for snow white so she can squeeze into the wedding dress later on in the show. one of the few european country that has bucked the

trend of low military spending in europe has been on a consistent basis been greece which is, for last 20 years spent around 4% gdp on defense where the e.u. averages 1.7. be interested to hear the implications of that. >> correct you, would be 5%. we're cutting back to 2.2%. nonetheless we did pay our debt to nato for this year. now hear here is the good news. the good news is that i'm the last speaker. the bad news is that i know that i got to be short, not take too much of your time. allow me first of all to think ian davis here from nato watch. paul ingram from basic and chris for their valuable contribution. this is a excellent conference. i thank you for getting us

on board. now another good news is that in order to watch the snow white and the seven dwarfs you need a writer. somebody has to write about the story. so the story is that smart defense is a new story that is coming up. now the problem is that smart defense not only reflects the united states cutting off the budgets but actually reflects more i would say also the european perception that we need to cut back basically on everything and my country, myself as well, we have this small problem that is called financial crisis now. so we need to cut basically on everything. imagine the minister of defense in greece cut back in one day 700 million just like that. now the problem is that nato is still, nato should, and still is valid and it will be valid for the future to come. for us in southeastern

europe nato is the only credible security organization in the europe atlantic region. and nato's fundamental question, in this case i speak for myself, is that nato has decided what it wants to do with it future and it will go along. so i wouldn't believe i would actually say that in the u.s. but i would have to dismiss any of those, you know, opinions that say that basically what is nato capable for? what do we need nato for and so on and so fourth? the cold war is over, yeah. the nato knows the cold war is over and proceeded to the next step and that next step is called emerging challenges, security threats and so on, so forth. the 2001 terrorist act in the u.s. were nothing about cold war. they were all about new modern-age symmetrical warfare. i think nato is concentrating more on that. the problem is in order to have a collective

organization of 28 member state working together is the issue of capabilities and inneroperability not only of forces but also of civilian and national staff that works inside nato. at the same time this reflects also the governments of the way they negotiate and they portray their policy orientations. nato itself is soup international entity that actually requires for governments to be open-minded and know their burden-sharing and offer their capabilities as also their capacities, their human capital and their finances. now greece has been able to do everything except the human capital. we've been giving a lot of money at nato. we're offering a lot. we're leading the nrf for 2012. nobody mentioned the nrtf this is basically nato's battalion if i may use your word of battalion. this is nato's battalion

should be engaged at some point in some operation but nonetheless not engaged yet. so the question is for the upcoming nato chicago summit what to do with interoperability. what do we do with capacity building capabilities and so forth? we call that smart defense. secretary-general of nato called that smart defense. i would like to use the sharing of idea. i totally agree with smart defense. it should be negotiated. i also believe my country should take a step up. we need to solve the issues, whether our regional issues or not, our reamnal issues, fiscal crisis is also political crisis we resolve issues and move forward. we take the step and move along and move ahead. so i will not take too much, too long of your time but i will, i will divide my speech into three parts. the first part that i will explain how i understand or how we understand in southeastern europe smart defense. what is smart defense in southeastern europe engaging in area of expertise and

what is to expect to the chicago summit from our leaders? now if i can give a title to my whole speech i would give it as creating a smart defense, engame gauging, engaging a smart alliance. international connected environment that is full of challenges and threats, in times of austerity, historical political changes smart defense an essence of for and alliance unit has come forth. expected to be officially negotiated and presented to this upcoming this week at nato chicago sum milt of 28 heads of government. smart defense is new security culture comprehension. this is what i do as academic or heading my own institute. it is a new way of thinking. it is all about generating modern defense capabilities. it is all about new ideas. it is about the future of nato as an alliance not only in conceptual framework but actually tactical and

strategic. all about the encouragement of corporate defense and all about maintaining military capabilities but also enhancing military capabilities with low as possible financial costs and human capital. according to the concept. nato is moving forward on the 21st century. 21st century challenges require agile forces. compatible forces but also deployable forces. may i remind you greece has forces but we're not deployable forces. we're static forces. nato needs interoperable forces. we also need to have smart budgets that the direct funds for capacity building and planning effectiveness. we also need to be operationally viable with minimum budgets as obl possible and enhanced technology and minimal human cost and specific time frame in operations in and out. smart defense all about renewing operational and tactical effectiveness and

operational alliance coordination. all about specialization. smart defense is about to set priorities and to better coordinate collective efforts. therefore smart defense is all about your geographical proximity but also capability. area specialization. it is core relation of initiative and militarily political coordinating joint and not duplicating procedures such as ballistic missile defense, intelligence sharing, surveillance and reconnaissance, maintenance and readiness, training and force preparation. all this again with a minimum cost of casualties and high level of technology preparedness. no wonder why we have the cyberdefense issue as well. smart defense is priority policy for nato. it should be and it is the continued evolution of the capabilities initiative. aligns national capability priorities with those of nato as super national eyeses policies with cooperative and consensus level agreement that produce

a cost effective projection. planning and application involve the theater but also real world operations. specialization therefore is a key word. it is the essence of coordinated efforts, low-cost fiscal increased kprop race effectiveness and guaranty of engagement for the future. specialization as a for of cooperation of geographical interests or of strategic sharing of cost collectively or individually but postively decisively directed. smart defense is therefore a long term viable solution. defense ministers have paved the way. foreign ministers agree at forthcoming chicago summit the elements are expected to be addressed. overall defense package are supposed to be negotiated. smart defense is therefore to rise up to the level. it will be a new approach, a new commitment, a new mindset of capabilities, political and military. a new security culture understanding and application that is now expected to be decided.

what in shorten gaugement in smart defense will equally mean reapproachment of collective understanding in the new atlantic culture and atlantic identity but also fidelity. let me go to what smart defense is associated with southeastern europe. it is engaging the expertise, simple it is not. it is not well-comprehended due to the inability or unwillingness for political and thus military engaugement. the good news they are interested in learning more. unfortunately in time of austerity measures and political challenges but also changes issues such as smart defense say or become a secondary issue of concern. nonetheless national and collective defense remains at the forefront of interests of states with issues that are of security and defense concerns. as long as there are regional and peripheral concerns smart defense and therefore security issues will be raised.

eventually, implemented and even complimented through initiatives of support. to what concerns smart defense in greece? i would say we are interoperable. we have the already made engagement. we are belle prepared. we have high quality level of deliverables credibility, unlike the political situation that exists at least this week in greece. what do we need to do now? as greeks we need to reaffirm commitments, realign relations and alliances, develop and resolve issues of concern whether regional or peripheral. yet we need to request more human capital applied in positions that will level concern. also promote new security culture both internally and into the alliance and cooperative members separately. if you give me a minute i would say to what is expected to the post-chicago, the chicago summit but also to the post-chicago summit meeting we should need to

create a smart defense conceptualization, specialization affording a new security framework and culture, deliverables looking forward to a new enmainment with minimum cost and minimum human capital. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. right, i'm going to open it up for discussion. we have 35 minutes. i would ask you try to keep your comments and your questions brief and try to insure the panel do likewise in replaying. take them in batches of three please. also could you identify yourself and your affiliation. the man in the front here and then yeah, a couple more. >> specifically about the anti-ballistic missile defense put across europe there, i was in the navy. ron fisher. we the people now.org. in the last submarine i

could have wiped out over 100 bases or 100 cities with warheads. the apm i like to know do we really want to build that stupid system? it is against an international treaty. also absolutely ineffective. we want to build abm? >> any sense here? >> thanks. andrea bauman, center for transatlantic relations. my question is about something some of the panelists touched upon but i would like to ask you specifically with regard to expectations for the chicago summit whether the discussion about specialization and coordination will be accompanied by a debate over a vision of what nato actually wants to do with a smart defense force in terms of, in the sense of going beyond just counting budget

numbers and weapons programs but really discussing what, what there is actually a vision of what this force should be for and i would say in order to, coming back to the buffet metaphor miss smith has used of course you want to make sure that not everyone brings salads and forget the brownies but you also need to know what kind of party you want to throw and does nato know what kind of party it wants to throw in 10-year's time. >> thank you. i think there was someone just behind there. >> thank you. from nato defense college. my question was actually about the analogy and that maybe the other panelists can also answer my question. the analogy i think is relevant and i'm convinced in the case of the u.s., in the case of european allies, more skeptical and i was wondering what's the threshold you identify under

which the decrease of the defense expenditures can no longer main taken the credibility of nato as an alliance to fulfill its commitment, more specifically the article five? you mentioned the brigade and u.s. nuclear weapons. if we remove them, all the u.s. military footprint in europe how do you convince for instance the partners, not the partners the allies in the baltics which are actually a very frightened by the russian activity, how do you convince them article v is still credible? that is my question. >> we have a question on rationale building missile defenses in this context of a part of a smart solution. the detail of specialization and cooperation, how does that fit into a broader vision where nato wants to go and then on context of when is enough enough?

i think i'll ask all the panelists to consider those questions. you can dip in and also either all three of them or pick and choose if you like. start you with you again, julie. >> okay. i'll try maybe the second one and i'll say a word about missile defense. as was noted earlier on the panel, i think nato ever sense, it's obvious. we said this as numerous conferences, countless conferences over the year but ever since the end of the cold war the yes, the alliance has struggled to have that single vision of what the future holds and obviously if you take a short tour through portugal and poland and norway and estonia and canada you get different answers. there are lots of different threats that are listed by allies when they think about what the future is for this

alliance and it ranges from everything from the more traditional article v to energy security, to cyber, arctic issues, high north, the list goes on and on. and so what was useful in at least bringing that together in some sort of comprehensive vision was what we went through at the last summit. to sit down at nato's 60th anniversary or birthday and have a check and rewrite the strategic concept. one could argue that maybe it doesn't provide enough detail but i think it was a very helpful exercise for the alliance to go through. frankly having worked on it behind the scenes it was painful and difficult, simply because as i just said, you do have some competing visions and that balance between, you know, finding the sweet spot between article v and

regional/global security provider is challenging. but think do i , i do think that the strategic does provide a basic level of guidance in that regard. i think there are differences but with that guidance you can determine there is certain level of capabilities that are required and frankly the gap between article v and more broader global regional security providers outside the euro-atlantic air area isn't as wide as some would believe. the truth is you're going to need a basic level of expeditionary capabilities to respond to an article v scenario whether it's something inside the euro-atlantic area or a threat that's challenging the alliance or the euro-atlantic community from beyond that region. if portugal is thinking of responding to some sort of scenario in the baltics it needs to be expeditionary.

this is not a scenario anywhere anymore where we expect the threat and challenge to come to nato. the vision of tanks rolling over the border and coming to you is fading away and so i think while again different countries can choose to play to their strengths and their regional expertise i think you can, it's not that challenging to begin a conversation about the level of capabilities or the types of capabilities this is going to need and i think taking that conversation coming back to the first question, the alliance has decided collectively at its last summit that it wanted to pursue a missile defense system. it decided it wanted it to be nato providing that system, not simply the united states moving ahead with the epaa. the nato system is anticipated to bring more to the enable table than the epaa. the epaa is no question the

core of nato missile defense but i think the vision is over time countries will be able to add on capabilities to it. we now have a situation where we have countries coming forward with contributions. the netherlands hasn't indicated it will be upgrading some of its frigates to add missile defense radar. germany is going to be contributing patriots. different countries are trying to figure out, france is working on early warning, ways which they can contribute to the system but the commitment was made in lisbon. we now have reached phase one of the epaa which will be the u.s. contribution to the system and we will declare this capability, interim capable at this summit in chicago. >> i'd like to warn those who use this obesity analogy that's a very, very

dangerous path to go down. if we look back to last 20 years my big concern is that actually we have started spending the peace dividend too fast and too early, too happily and so, so i think we just have to get back to the understanding this really, we have to figure out how to be rational about our spending and i wouldn't encourage the united states to spend less. and i, i would just say that, i guess we europeans, we are very pleased with the u.s. spending so much because honestly, we count on you, we don't say it but we count on you to be there for us when we need you and that really has kind of, kind of put us in a mindset where

honestly i think most europeans think we can get away with this. this is not that important because in the end the u.s. will be there for us and the real worrying messages in the last couple of years is that, you know, the u.s. might not be there for us. and so i think it is important that it is up to us europeans also to make sure that the u.s. understands that we don't want you to go away and that we will be rethinking our own spending in order to make sure you understand that we're in it together. just want to say a few words about defense industry. i think it is important that the u.s. understands that there is this concern in europe that basically smart defense will mean more american equipment in europe and i think it is in your interests, it is in the

american interests and it is in our interest that we have, we find a good balance between good competition between competition that enhances technology. making sure that there is no protectionism in the arms market but at the same time that europe itself also keeps up with the technological developments and will be able to provide proper equipment, proper european equipment. that, by the way, might be used in the u.s. as well. so i'm not advocating european arms for europe. what i'm advocating is that it is important that the european armaments industry stays part of the alliance armament industry. >> just before i pass it on to other members of the panel may be useful some of

the numbers are bandied about about reductions and withdraw, i know the u.s. ministry don't like to talk about in terms of withdrawal of europe. they talk about in terms of rebalancing of its commitment to europe and they're looking to make reduction of i think around 15% in the current troop numbers in europe and they're currently 80,000 u.s. troops based in europe and there were something like 400,000 during the height of the cold war. that is an indication. part of that rebalancing is additional commitments putting into europe and includes missile defense. includes new commitments for maritime forces and also includes special forces as well which have been deployed into europe. i think, and just another set of figures, i think there is a case to be made about the, looking at the level of u.s. defense expenditure. i looked up the nato

produces an annual set of statistics for defense expenditure throughout the alliance. if you take the peak year of defense spending which was in 1995 and follow it through in constant prices, collectively european nato is spending about the same as it did in 1995 at the peak of the cold war. now obviously 1995 there were only 14 european members of nato and now there are 26. so in terms of individual member-states spending has gone down. it has gone down significantly but overall collectively european nato is still spending the same. given we've moved from the peak of the cold war into a, into a security environment which is not necessarily involving existential threats. to me that seems quite reasonable. if you look at the u.s. defense spending from the peak of the cold war to where it is today, it has gone up something like 75%.

kind of confirms what john was saying earlier. there is a context for saying that the capabilities gap is in part a supply push on the part of the u.s. now whether, i guess i'll throw it back to the panel because one of the questions was about how much is enough and so i just wanted to kind of set that and give you a little bit of context. >> may i just say something that is really important. the withdrawal of the troops from the u.s. troops from europe will have important not only military but sociological impacts and i think that is something that should not be underestimated. so i think both sides have to work on, how do we replace that because don't forget the presence of u.s. troops, their participation in local societies, the message that they convey,

their closeness and you could go on and on, have been a very important part of how this relationship is perceived. >> i'm sorry, but i would add that two of the four brigades that are stationed in europe have not been on european soil more or less for the last decade. so returning those two brigades to the united states means that they will not return to europe from afghanistan. i mean i fully appreciate what you're trying to say and trust me, as someone who was actually arguing to keep that 3rd brigade in europe, and succeeded for at least a year i take your point but also needs to be known two of the four have not been present and those interactions have not been occurring. so one could say with the new brigade assigned to the united states with battalions rotating to europe, some of that

connective tissue will occur once again that's been lacking since we went into afghanistan. >> okay. john. >> yes. i mean i think that you have very adequately and knew mayoricly expressed the problem. the peace dividend, the peace dividend disappeared in the 1990s. we were familiar with what happened. we were able to balance our budget. we were able to do a little bit with some of the money we saved but that disappeared quite rapidly with the doubling of the u.s. military budget after 2000, 2001. we did not prepare for transformation of our manufacturing base. we saw the erosion of our manufacturing base as a result of that. not that complete causal relationship there. it is only one of the contributing factors. but we did not prepare for, when we had a peace dividend, for a transformation of our

manufacturing base. in terms of the obesity analogy, well obviously we are the biggest elephant in the room. we're responsible for 43% of all military spending in the world according to figures released a couple -- about a month ago but we're not the only fat can cat. there are pretty budge pudgy people out there. some europeans are pretty pudgy too. france, germany, u.k., are pretty big spenders. they could use a little slimming in my humble opinion. how many how much slimming do we do? i'm not a diet tish shun. i don't know exactly but i do think that, as they say with diets it is not just cutting the amount of food that you eat. it is lifestyle. it i changing your whole approach. if we're going to be cutting in europe we have to change the lifestyle, the approach to security issues. we talked about human security. kind of a nebulous topic,

granted. looking at a variety of different approaches to threat that are nonmilitary-based. when we outlined the various threats that face nato we have this kind of hodgepodge of threats. cyberterrorism, piracy, that add up to not a whole heck of a lot in terms of the needed capabilities to address them. rogue states seem to be, you know, a kind of return of the 1990s in terms of nato's search for a rational. syria, iran, countries that pose a threat, not only to their region but the global order and therefore nato has to kind of bulk up for that but i find that a very problematic concept as it was problematic in the 1990s. a resurge ability russia, that is background for what people think nato might be useful for. overall i think looking at

different capabilities in europe that can replace the military capabilities that are either being removed by the united states or being reduced by european countries is a necessary conversation to have. and i look forward to having that conversation. not going to take place in chicago unfortunately but maybe later at a subsequent nato summit. >> until now the germany, the u.s., and france, all these big countries, the u.k., but you haven't spoken about a small country spending more money than we actually should. not only that but buying weapons that we're not deploying, we're just keeping. now this is my argument to support you. what is my country argument? yes, well we don't have any money you probably realize

by now that we don't have any money. so the options, what do you do then? do you sort of like close that country good-bye or you reinstate your, your status all over. the idea is basically button called reset like computers reset where you know what word the mistakes and learn what mistakes of other countries mainly those that have been leading. the correlation between leading countries we have common history on this one. in those areas history plays a very, very important role. so don't wonder why we do not allow so easily neighboring countries to join nato so suddenly. the, the issue is that we can not as a country, we can not play the role of burde burden-sharing as other countries do.

so instead of basically this is my point of view but we don't have a government anymore so. instead of making a fool out of ourselves globally, we've been doing that quite well for the last year, we decided that we need to specialize in something. that is before smart defense came about. i remember when it was, we're even talking about specialization. so what is the key point for countries that have water all around it, have a lot of natural resources and have a lot of issues when it comes down to security to, you know, regional security stability? you, you specialize on an issue of basically concerns the world and that is transfer of goods through the waters. that is called piracy issues, maritime issues. in this case unlike the whole government i can economics and stuff, we seem

to have a lot of money and we're talking about billions or trillions. the problem is that not everybody has a flag of the country on the back of huge taxation. so why don't we specialize in this one and share on things. maybe, just maybe, other allied member countries can actually specialize on the things they're interested at, find a common ground where they can actually decide because the way that i interpret things and the way that i have been receiving things when it comes down to nato there will is a bit of egoism as well, who is the worst, who is the best, who leads, who doesn't lead and all this stuff. so instead of just making too much conversation why don't we have each country specialize in one thing. keep create the services, research, r&d. do human capital training from universities and instatutes and so on and so forth. that is a very simple because basically you cut back on everything and you

leave only one sector which basically makes you a very important player in the world arena. and unlike, unlike my colleague here whom he said they need to cut spending the it. >> made a very good job into, understanding what are the global threats at an early time whereas we europeans, we do not. we're still thinking about integrating ourselves again and again and again and again and again and more an even more from coal and steel to the european community. from the european community to european union. we are have a currency. and currency is falling apart. not only greece, but italy, spain, ireland, portugal, all the countries have problems and so forth. yes, big countries like germany need to, they do that, take all the burden sharing like france does. instead of arguing who is

the best when you specialize you cut back on everything because this is the most viable solution because you also need to take care of the political situation arising in europe and it's not a good one. it's not a good one. it is not a viable one. it is not credible one. and not trustworthy one. believe me i've had experience with these guys trying to get inside government. i would say let's be more honest. say yes there are things that are missing. yes there are things we need to negotiate. yes, we need to find a solution like they do in the vatican where they close themselves until they find a new pope. and at the same time, let's be honest and let's sacrifice some issues in order to resolve some others. because the world is not safe. it's not safe where nearby syria and i know how unsafe things are. if we go down to the eurozone there will be a domino effect and if any

country, if any country falls there is going to be a domino effect not only greece. but let's be sort of frank and let's be honest and let's give nato a chance. >> i would like to take another batch of questions. again we're running out of time so try and be brief. >> [inaudible]. the problems, american university of paris. i like to address the last point because one of the main problems in that specific region of the world is the lack of solidarity between two nato members, and i mentioned, you have gone around the word turkey and that's your regional base. your expenses are not cold war. they're vis-a-vis turkey, historical debate as you said. what can be done within nato to begin to reduce the tensions between the two? if you emphasize sea power as you did, sea power is to

guaranty the resources and you know there's a burgeoning conflict between turkey and greece over the eastern mediterranean, over cypress that is linked to israel and it is linked to lebanon and even the palestinian question. and that, that growing tension i think is really crucial and it's an achilles' heel to nato. and i really think it needs to be addressed. thank you. >> sorry. just behind, yeah. >> julie, thank you very much for your remarks. i was wondering when you were at csi c report on european defense and others and you talked a lot about pooling resources and niche capabilities and european defense agency, what countries could do. i wonder now that you're in government if you see burgeoning trends in that regard since then?

>> thank you. very quick question. thank you for mentioning partnership in the context of your presentation. in particular as it relates to smart defense and i was wondering whether you had any sense of the expectations prior to chicago in terms of associating partners to our discussions at 28 on smart defense? >> [inaudible]. >> wonder if anyone on the panel might want to comment on the link between smart defense and the nuclear issue in particular. i think it's already been mentioned. the u.k. decisions up to now to reduce investments in conventional forces in favor of maintaining the trident. in terms of smart defense

what the panel might think it would be better to go the other way. >> okay. we have four questions. one on the intranato tensions and given the smart defense it is all about trust, trusting neighbors and working with neighbors, how does that kind of pan out. another question on the kind of pooling of resources based on earlier studies. another question on partnerships and also linkages between smart defense and nuclear issues. that will be one of the key topics for two of the sessions we have tomorrow. if i could ask the panelists to be, you know relatively brief. pick and choose which parts of the questions you want to answer. so maybe i'll start with the other end this time. marios. >> okay. >> maybe you could focus on just the, yeah, that itself -- >> that's a million, i heard this question so many times. okay. i'm very different.

i'm not going, all the -- i will reply in very different way. israel suddenly declare they have a with greece. solution solved. issue solved. we have our own sovereign borders and we respect specific things. if our, counterparts would like to negotiate it is not negotiatable. i will put a point on this one. however i can guaranty you did not choose your neighbors. you live with your neighbors especially when it comes down to fwee graphical issues. i believe we made a very good start with relations. turkey is very keen on ballistic missile defense and at the same time, turkey is suddenly becoming a peripheral power. now, we have to be, to disengage those two countries between them. turkey is eight 80 million

market economy, developing economy, and greece is million market economy. i wouldn't say falling apart but it is restructuring itself. the only thing that bind us together is that if we fail they will fail. other than this 23 you want me to criticize a bit turkey there will are games for me, total failure. they didn't solve an issue but nonetheless we're the best ally. we are their best ally. they are our best ally and we have shown that. we have the nato maritime treaty inder. and director is naval officer of greece and second is turkish. i would love to see that at some point. this is my answer. >> just, briefly on that issue, alliances sometimes have perverse effects. there was an attempt, a document years ago at least

where turkey and greece the leaders sat down to talk about reductions in military spending and confidence building et cetera, yet within the context of nato as a whole of course the push is to increase military spending. without too much thought about how that might impact the relationship between greece and turkey. it is not, you know, a peck lairty of the nato alliance. we have the same thing with south korea and japan. we push south korea to spend more and more money without thinking necessarily, oh, wait a second, south korea and japan, our other ally have a serious territorial conflict. the fact south korea calls one of its destroyers, which is the island of dispute between japan and south korea doesn't send warning signals to the united states maybe not a good idea to simply encourage our allies to spend more money out thinking or preparing for some kind of confidence building alternative?

some kind of military tension-reducing formula between our allies? so that's the kind of discussion i would like to see not only within nato but the united states fosters among its allies in general. >> would you go first? >> sure. just really quickly on the european defense integration report that we put out at csi s, i think it was -- it was before its time. it was 2003. we've seen traction on concepts presented in the report. pooling sharing and niche capabilities it is really taking root now because of the financial crisis and it is obviously, front and center on everyone's minds but we have not come to a point where this is the be-all-end-all answer to all our problems. there are a lost questions on the stable table. similar to the questions that we heard when we wrote the report about sovereignty.

about handing over responsibility for your security to a neighbor or a collection of neighbors. and there's still questions about where to invest and who is coordinating it as i pointed out. so i think it could take root and i think smart defense is a big opening act is going to occur this weekend but the real proof will be in whether or not this is a concept that is sustainable and pursued long term. it can not be a one-off. we do not want to have this summit open with smart defense and close with smart defense because 20 multilet ral initiatives is by no means enough. i think we're putting the keys in the engine and we're going to see how things work out but really the success of this will rest on future commitments to it. >> really like that, julie. i think you're certainly right. just two comments. one is, i don't think we should conclude on a really

pessimistic note what happens to the eurozone. my personal belief is that that it's tough. i don't see it falling apart and there is clearly an option that we will, we'll figure out how to, how to get beyond the situation that we have now. so i, i have to say that i disagree with your pessimism. but on the partnership note i want to be very clear, i don't know what will happen. i have my very strong views on this. i do feel that finland and sweden have come very, very close to, to, the difference between finland's ability to participate and the ability of a full member state and i think that has to be appreciated. i do believe in one way or

another nato should appreciate this fact. i think there should be differentiation between members and i don't think nato should push either sweden or, or finland towards making their close cooperation condition to their membership because their internal factors. there are historic factors and this should not prevent finland and sweden and countries like them to make their full contribution to nato operations and that's really my very strong view. what chicago will bring in this respect i don't know. i'm almost certain that the topic will come up and i, i hope that, that, this whole concept of a special relationship will be supported in chicago. >> thank you very much. i'm not as chair going to attempt to sum up the discussions we've just had in part because i think that

julie did that herself when she said that chicago is an opening act. and also partly because we're continuing this capabilities debate tomorrow. i think you'll agree we have a really good smart discussions today and i would urge you all to join us tomorrow for continuation of these discussions but i'd like to urge you to join me in thanking them all for their contributions this afternoon. [applause] >> and join us we're having a reception and it will be hosted in the area where we had lunch. we'll continue with the conversation. thank you very much.

>> reading has become over the last 200 years the ultimate democratic act of the ultimate democratic country because it makes it possible for the many to teach themselves what the few want once helped close. the president can quote mark twain because he has read huck finn and the postman can understand the reference because he has read huck finn too. so that the big lies of demagoguery although still possible require a lot more stealth and cleverness because with careful reading of books and newspapers and now material on the internet their flaws are revealed to ordinary people like us. it wasn't for nothing that the nazis made bonfires of books. >> in 1992 anna quinlan won a pulitzer prize on a wide rage range of personal and political topics. you can talk to the best-selling author on "book tv" sunday, june 3rd on

c-span2 in depth. watch her other comment over the years online, on c-span video library on her writings, beliefs and convictions. all archived and searchable at c-span.org slash/video library. >> looking here at the u.s. capital building this morning where the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to begin their day we understand a agreement was reached how to proceed with a bill reauthorizing the export-import bank. debate on that measure will continue until the chamber breaks for party caucus lunches at 1230 eastern today. they will be back at 2:15 with votes expected on five amendments followed by final passage. to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2 and not to destroy. save our senators from the blindness which is not even

even aware of mistakes. save them from the pride that ignores the security of many advisors. save them from the self-will which can see no flaw within itself. save them also from the care for those in pain and from -- save us all when we put the blame on something or from someone also and from hearts so hardened that we cannot repent. today, give our lawmakers a sense of destiny and a deep

dependence on your guidance and your grace. we pray in your sovereign 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 15, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move 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 bank of the united states and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, we're now on the motion to proceed to the export-import bank reauthorization bill. i ask unanimous consent that the hour following my remarks and those of the republican leader be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: and i would also ask, mr. president, as part of that that the majority would control the first half and republicans the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: at 11:15 the motion to proceed will be adopted and there will be up to two hours of debate on the bill. there will be up to five amendments. at 12:30 senate will recess up to 2:15 for weekly caucus

meetings. as early as 2:15 there will be up to six roll call votes in order to complete action on the export-import bank. there could possibly be five votes. that's part of the offer. i've been told they may not all be offered. and then we'll have final passage on the bill. mr. president, h.r. 5652 is at the desk and due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: h.r. 5652, an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings on this issue at this time. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the item shall be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm happy to announce that democrats and republicans have reached an agreement to move forward are the reauthorization of the ex-im bank legislation. this bank helps american companies sell their products overseas and hire workers here

at home. it helped private companies add almost 300,000 jobs last year in more than 2,000 american communities. that's why the labor groups, manufacturers, u.s. chamber of commerce and many, many other organizations have urged the senate to move quickly to reauthorize this bank who is lending limit is just about to expire. the second ranking officer at the chamber of commerce wrote this to us yesterday, all senators -- quote -- "failure to enact this legislation would put at risk american jobs at 3,600 companies that depend on ex-im to compete in global markets. because other countries are providing their own exporters with an estimated $1 trillion in export finance often in more than generous term than ex-im bank can provide, failure to authorize would cost to tens of thousands of american jobs. china, for instance, has three export credit agencies that last year provided $300 billion in

export finance to its exporters, ten times more than the ex-im bank provided. this bill would help level the financial playing field in export markets and ensure transparency in ex-im's operations." this is directly from the chamber of commerce. this legislation, mr. president, helps american businesses export their products instead of exporting jobs. we're authorizing this important legislation the kind of consent proposal that shouldn't result in any kind of partisan fight. i spoke to senator mcconnell yesterday, and we made the decision this is the best way to move forward on this. i'm hopeful that the senate will pass it overwhelmingly, signaling to american businesses that congress will do what it takes to help them compete in the global market. although republicans say publicly they support this important measure, they have instead insisted on votes and a number of amendments that would kill the bill. the chamber of commerce will consider votes on this measure and any amendments that will

weaken the bank be keys to determine whether senators are business-friendly. amendments offered by my republican colleagues would certainly weaken the bank. one amendment just eliminates the bank. these kinds of amendments are unacceptable to the business community. the national association of manufacturers issued a similar warning yesterday which i read here on the floor. we agree we can't afford to give an inch to our global competitors. canada, france and india already provided seven times the assistance their exporters than america does. china and brazil provides ten times the support. so if senate republicans are faced with a choice, they can continue to support these extreme amendments that will effectively kill the export-import bank and risk the wrath of the american business community or they can work with the democrats to reauthorize this bank without adding amendments that would undermine its ability to help businesses grow. we have been told that the house

is going to accept no amendments. it was very hard for them to get done what they did. i admire and appreciate what they did do. but, mr. president, i'm optimistic, optimistic that my republican colleagues will make the right choice and help us defeat these vexatious amendments. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: there is a lot of talk on the left these days about the senate being a dysfunctional institution, and they're right. for the past few years the senate hasn't functioned as it should. the question is why? and in my view, the answer is quite clear. the majority party that believes it should be able to dictate

from above the shape of every single piece of legislation we take up. the common complaint from the other side, as i understand it, is that because republicans insist on playing a role in the legislative possess around here, we're somehow violating some unspoken rule that says democrats should always get their way. that we're somehow disturbing the legislative harmony by suggesting we do the kinds of things our constituents want. we've been dealing with this strange view of the senate in some form or fashion for five years. but particularly over the past three. here's how it works. following the lead of our very liberal president, democratic leaders in the senate propose some piece of legislation without any republican input at all. then republican amendments are blocked from even being considered. the point in most cases is to

draw republican opposition and ensure that the legislation fails. democrats then cry obstruction as a way of distracting people from the fact that they've basically given up on governing and done nothing to ensure that our most pressing national problems actually get addressed. rather than work with us on bipartisan solutions that reflect the concerns and input of our constituents, and that, therefore, have a good chance of actually passing, democrats blame the other side for obstruction, not only avoiding their own responsibilities as the majority party, but having the president a useful election-year theme to run on. now what i and my colleagues have been saying for three years is that it doesn't have to be this way. give us an opportunity to play a role in the process, and we'll work together on bipartisan solutions. just look at the record. when democrats blocked all debate and amendments on the

export-import bank legislation, it went nowhere. when they agreed to our reasonable request for input on the bill, that changed. they could have accepted this offer actually much earlier, but they didn't because it didn't fit the story line. the same thing on the postal bill. when democrats blocked all amendments and debate, the bill stalled. when they agreed to a reasonable list of amendments, it passed. same could be said about trade adjustment assistance, patent reform, f.a.a. reauthorization, the highway bill, unemployment insurance, the doc fix, payroll tax holiday, and others. it's the same story every time. poison pills are removed, republican input is allowed, and then things happen. republicans have been crystal clear that the export-import bank reauthorization needed some

work. remember, democrats tried to add it as an amendment to the jobs act before the house reached the agreement that enabled it to pass on a bipartisan basis over in the house. but again, they wanted to do it without giving senate republicans a chance to debate or amend on the floor, so it didn't go anywhere. now that we're being allowed to offer further improvements to the bill, there's a path forward. republicans fought for the right to make this bill more responsive to the concerns of the american people, who understandably want proof that we take our fiscal problems seriously. this is how the senate is supposed to work, and it's been all too rare over the past several years. the founders established the senate as a place where issues would be resolved through consensus and considered bipartisan debate. so that once that consensus is actually reached, our laws would be stable, and we could move on confident that we'd done the

right thing. the social security act of 1935 was approved by all but six members of the senate. the medicare and medicaid acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21. all but eight senators voted for the americans with disabilities act of 1990. the idea in all these cases and many others was that on issues of broad national importance, on issues that affect all of us, one party shouldn't be allowed to force its will on the other half of the nation. and yet, over the past few years democrats have felt quite differently. so i'm pleased today to see a departure from the democrat standard operating procedure on this particular piece of legislation before us. because they've agreed to allow a reasonable amendment process on this bill, something they objected to last month and then objected to again even as

recently as last week, this bill will be considered today after debate and votes on amendments aimed at improving it. there's a lesson here. when will both sides have a chance to debate and amend, legislation tends to move. but when the majority refuses any ideas that they didn't come up with, things slow down. let's hope this new process will stick. mr. president, i have another statement on another issue. this week we commemorate national police week 2012 and pay tribute to the men and women in the law enforcement community for their service and their sacrifice. in 1962, president kennedy signed a proclamation which designated may 15 as peace

officers memorial day, and the week in which it falls as police week. during national police week, the nation's capital welcomes tens of thousands of law enforcement officers to honor those who have fallen in the line of duty. among those visiting washington are hundreds of police officers from my home state of kentucky, and i want to personally welcome them and extend a special thank you for their service and sacrifice that they make to keep kentucky's communities and families safe. your hard work and dedication is unmatched and does not go unnoticed. today, we honor the approximately 900,000 peace officers across the country, as well as the more than 19,000 officers that have lost their lives, dating back to the first known line of duty death in 1791. including 163 officers who died in 2011 and 36 officers that

have been killed thus far in 2012. in addition, this year we are paying tribute to 199 officers who died in previous years but whose acts of courage and sacrifice were not discovered until recently. it's with great sadness that one of those officers we lost last year was from the commonwealth of kentucky. officer james phillip stumpy strickland of the alexandria, kentucky, police department. officer strickland was well respected among his peers and a leader within the community. he will be sorely missed. this week, the nation honors officer strickland as well as all those police officers that have fallen. i would also like to take a moment to remember the families of the fallen. it's only through supportive families that these men and women were able to dedicate their lives to protecting others. may god continue to look after them and may god continue to protect all those whose daily work is to protect all of us.

i hope paying tribute to those who have served and especially those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice reminds all of us of the heroes we have all around us, keeping us safe each day. i would encourage everyone to take a moment this week and going forward to extend a thank you to law enforcement officers that have sworn to protect us and to keep our communities safe. on behalf of myself and my senate colleagues, thank you, thank you to all members of the law enforcement community for your service. you have our deepest admiration and respect. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be one hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling

the second 30 minutes. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, before i say a word about the export-import bank, i would like to speak in morning business. i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the comments that were just made by the republican senate leader about the procedures in the senate are comments that i'd like to speak to directly, and first, perhaps to his sacrifice, let me say that i agree with him. the senate is not what it should be. it is an important part of this government. it is an important part of this nation. and it should be an important forum for the deliberation of critical issues that face us. historically, that's the role it's played, but what we found over the last several years is that we have lapsed into a new senate and not a very good one from my point of view. it is a senate that is overrun with filibusters. filibusters used to be so rare,

one or two a year in the early days, and then maybe a few more in the last 50 years, but now virtually every single week. and a filibuster is basically shutting down the senate, saying that we will not go forward to vote on a measure. it has been abused, overused and, frankly, has really denigrated the reputation of this important institution. now, what are the points of view? well, the points of view of the minority were well stated by the republican leader. the minority wants an opportunity to offer amendments. i know the feeling. i have been in the minority in the senate. it's your only opportunity to have a voice on the floor of the senate and to express a point of view that may not be reflected by the president or the senate majority. that's an understandable impulse. the majority in the senate is usually trying to move an agenda. many times, in this case, the president's agenda and frankly does not want to see this slowed down by an onslaught of amendments. there has to be a happy medium,

and that's what we need to seek. the suggestion of the senate republican leader that the problem we have with filibusters has to do with the fact, as he said it, that the republicans insist on playing a role and offering amendments is correct to a point, but i might remind the minority leader what happened last week? we brought up the college student loan bill. the object was to make sure that the interest rate on college student loans did not double july 1, from 3.4% to 6.8%. widely accepted, widely endorsed by president obama and by governor romney. how about that? both leading contenders for the presidency said don't let this interest rate double. you would think that would be an easy thing to accomplish. what we offered on the floor to the republicans was an opportunity to bring up the measure and they could bring up their amendments to the measure. that i think is what the senate

republican leader just asked for. how many republican senators voted with us to bring up the student loan measure subject to amendment? none. not one. so this suggestion that we're in filibuster because we don't offer an opportunity for amendment overlooks what happened last week. the college student loan bill gave ample opportunity to republicans to offer an amendment, and yet they still wouldn't allow us to proceed to that measure. so here's what i suggest. perhaps a cooling off period. perhaps that both sides do sit down and try to work out something that is reasonable. now, some can argue -- and perhaps at times i have argued -- that the senate should be an open forum, open debate, many different issues, but in the interest of achieving things here in a reasonable period of time, i would suggest that what senator reid, the democratic leader, did on postal reform was a good-faith effort to come to some kind of compromise with the

minority. if you will remember, senator reid came to the floor and said we will accept relevant amendments to postal reform. we had quite a few of them, if you will remember. and i think it was a healthy time. it was a rare occasion, unfortunately, on the senate floor, but it was a good-faith offer by the democratic leader. it gave the republicans ample opportunity to offer amendments. we debated them, we voted on them, we passed postal reform. i think that we need to find some commonality here where we can offer to the minority, which ever party is in the minority, the opportunity to offer relevant amendments to a bill. that means, of course, that it's an amendment that relates to the subject matter of the bill. two recent examples show how far afield you can become -- or you can reach. senator blunt of missouri offered an amendment to the transportation bill on the subject of birth control. now, maybe there is some way you can link up transportation and

birth control but i won't go there. i'll just say that that was a stretch to bring that issue to that bill, but he was given that chance. the junior senator from kentucky tried on bill after bill, totally unrelated to foreign policy, to offer an amendment on foreign aid to egypt. that, i think, shows how far you can stretch the opportunity to offer a floor amendment. like i said, there can be moments where we want to do that, but as a matter of course around here, i hope we can try to find some common ground. wouldn't it be refreshing if the senate floor was actually a floor where amendments were offered, debate ensued and a matter moved to final package, instead of watching us lurch from one mind-numbing filibuster to another? i have said it on the floor before, but a lot of people with cable tv are complaining to the cable tv providers that c-span, must be something wrong, nothing's happening on c-span. well, it's the senate, and many times, nothing happens because we are lurching through

filibusters. now, today we're going to move to the export-import bill. i'm going to yield the floor to my colleague from the state of new jersey. i ask consent that the statement that i have in support of the export-import bank reauthorization be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me just say very briefly, this is a bill that gives american corporations, large and small, a fighting chance to build the products here in america and sell them overseas, create jobs right here at home. we live in a world where china, most importantly china but many other nations have government support for their businesses' exporting. this is our government support for our businesses to export. boeing corporation has its national headquarters in chicago and most of its manufacturing operations in the state of washington. boeing is competing with airbus. airbus is a product -- a plane that is created by a conglomerate of european nations

which do their best to make sure that airbus wins a contract. i think it's not unfair that boeing have the same opportunity. nor caterpillar in my state, nor many businesses much smaller. so the export-import bank reauthorization is a good idea. it will create jobs. the amendments being offered on the republican side by and large limit the opportunities to help american businesses. i will be resisting those amendments. i hope we can move to the passage of this measure in a timely fashion. and i would like to yield to senator lautenberg. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i rise to join with my colleagues on this side to urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move quickly to confirm highly qualified

judicial nominees. they passed review by the judicial committee, they have passed all kinds of scrutiny. and, mr. president, we are on the verge of serious economic improvement. as that takes place, we have got a lot of parts to keep moving. we must do everything we can to fill the needs of positions that can help directly and indirectly to resolve dte problems, to find for country, to be able to find work, stay in their homes, provide their children with health care and education. we have to cooperate on all fronts to accelerate the pace of

the recovery that we see ahead of us. one of the places that both sides benefit from is to keep our justice system moving efficiently. people need to know that they can get disputes resolved, hopefully quickly, but heard and decided upon. one of the things that looms large is the trial of those who are charged with felonious deeds, criminal acts. let's get those who are convicted punished if it's called for. but to make sure that that part of our judiciary functioning is is -- is moved along as rapidly as it can be. property rights are at risk.

businesses need certainty about rights and responsibilities. and unfortunately, delays in confirming qualified judicial nominees who have passed the scrutiny of the judiciary committee is threatening to grind the wheels of justice to a halt when there are vacancies around. nearly one in 11 federal judgeships across the country are sitting there awaiting the position to be filled. if these positions were physicians, firemen, cops and one out of 11, almost 10% of these jobs were not filled, we would do something as rapidly as we can to get them resolved. at this point in president george bush's presidency, the senate had confirmed 25 more

judges than have been confirmed since president obama took office. and seriously needed nominees have been forced to wait more than four times as long as the bush nominees who are to be confirmed after being favorably reported, as i mentioned, by the judiciary committee. as a result, the vacancy rate is nearly twice what it was at this point in president bush's first term, and these vacancies are not some remote problems that only lawyers and academics care about. judicial vacation sis affect the ability of everyday americans and businesses to see justice served and countless of them have had their cases delayed. i am encouraged that we have been able to confirm a number of

nominees lately, including two last evening, and it's my hope that for the good of the country we will pick up the pace in confirming nominees, particularly i see it from our state's point of view. in our state of new jersey, we have three distinguished nominees who have been approved by the judiciary committee and are awaiting votes by the full senate so they can get to work in their obligation to dispense justice. one of these people is former magistrate judge patty shwartz, been nominated to serve on the third circuit court of appeals. had flying colors in examination of her background and would be the only woman serving as an active third circuit judge. her presence would tell the

women in our society something more about our understanding of what's taking place in this review of where women are in our society. since 2003, patty shwartz has served as a u.s. magistrate judge in the district of new jersey. she handled more than 4,000 civil and criminal cases. she spent almost 14 years as an assistant u.s. attorney, supervising hundreds of criminal cases including civil rights, violent crime, drug trafficking and fraud cases. i review her qualifications only to make the case, here's a person eminently qualified to sit on the bench. we need her presence there to move the volume of cases that are awaiting review, and she's bottled up here by reluctance on the other side to say, okay,

she's passed the test. let's let her go to work. john lacy, past president of the association of the new jersey federal bar said that judge shwartz is thoughtful, intelligent, and has an extraordinary high level of common sense. thomas curtain, the chairman of the lawyers advisory committee for the u.s. district court of new jersey said -- and i quote him here -- "every lawyer in the world will tell you she's extraordinarily qualified, a decent person and an excellent judge. the american bar association clearly agrees. they gave her the highest rating of unanimously well-qualified. judge shwartz graduated from rutgers university with the highest honors. she received her law degree from the university of pennsylvania law school, where she was editor of the law review and named her class as outstanding woman law

graduate. the two nominees for new jersey's district court are similarly well qualified: kevin mcnulty, currently leads an appellate practice group in new jersey. he spent more than a decade in the u.s. attorney's office in new jersey. , rising to the deputy chief of the criminal division and chief of the appeals division. mr. mcnulty clerked for u.s. district judge frederick layy after receiving his will you degree from new jersey -- his laude tkpwraoefplt his undergraduate degree came from new jersey. the a.b.a. rated him unanimously well qualified. i'm confident that his work as a judge will earn him similar praise. judge michael shipp, another

appointee, has equally impressive credentials. as a u.s. magistrate judge in the district of new york since 2007, he's conducted proceedings in both civil and criminal cases, including ruling on motions issuing recommendations to district court judges, performing district court judge duty in cases with magistrate jurisdiction. judge shipp previously worked in the new jersey attorney general's office as assistant attorney general in charge of consumer protection and then as counsel to the attorney general where he ran a department of 10,000 employees. and he worked as a litigator at a distinguished law firm scadden arps and as law clerk to justice cullman jr. judgeshipp, graduate of rutgers

university, see tan hall university law school, where he continues to teach as an adjunct law professor, a position that he's held for more than a decade. mr. president, i review the qualifications of these judges to remove any doubt about whether or not they could do a good job. they can do a great job. their background says they're ready to go to work. and here we are, frankly, holding them up, in my view, unnecessarily. let's get this behind us. there are things where we can cross the aisle without invading the province of the other members. and i think we just ought to cooperate on judges. i think that i can speak for the democrats here that we'll cooperate. we'll take the judges that are

presented from their side. but we want to just get going with judges altogether. and i thank chairman leahy and ranking member grassley for moving these nominees through the judiciary committee, but now it's time to bring them to the floor and confirm them. judge shwartz, mr. mcnulty, judge shipp have brought honor to new jersey and to our country. they deserve to be confirmed. and more importantly, the american people deserve to see these vacancies filled so that the promise of justice for all can truly be fulfilled. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i continue and want to family size the remarks that senator lautenberg made. it makes no sense that district judges -- i've not been here that long, but what i've seen happen in the last couple, three years about judges appointed by

the president of the united states being slow walked or just ignored or blocked in this body is just outrageous. my first month in office, i was presented with a republican judge coming from a republican president, 2007, approved by my predecessor, senator dewine, and my seat mate, my colleague, senator voinovich. i met with her. i talked with her. i sent up to the judiciary committee my approval. she was confirmed within the first quarter of my first three months -- was confirmed in the second or third month that i was here, because i believed that the president of the united states should have the right to choose judges as long as they're qualified. that's why i ask us to move forward on these judicial nominations. in june 2010, u.s. district judge james carr took senior status creating a vacancy in the northern district court in ohio, in toledo. that means that ohioans seeking criminal or civic justice have to wait, creating a backlog of

too many cases. that's what we've seen happen. in 2007, senator voinovich, a republican, and i made a commission of distinguished ohio lawyers to find the best candidate for the job. i'm sorry, it wasn't 2007. it was later than that. that was the initial commission. i'm sorry. then in 2009, with the election of a president of a different party, we updated the commission. this commission appointed by senator voinovich and myself, consisted of legal professionals from the southern district of the state to suggest nominations for the vacant judgeships in the northern district of the state. we did it in the reverse northern lawyers from the north, choosing for the southern district to make sure there were not conflicts of interest. this commission was very bipartisan. one of them had a republican majority. one of them had a democratic majority. following judge carr's retirement, the commission selected, i interviewed three and sent to the president, and

then the president nominated jeffrey helmick. toledo native, brilliant, distinguished lawyer. he earned the respect of his colleagues for doing his job years. for nearly two years his nomination languished. for nearly two years he had to place his defense practice in life on hold awaiting senate confirmation. this is no way to treat a public servant. now, according to the u.s. constitution, it's our job to confirm qualified nominees to serve in our nation's highest court. but as of april 2012, senator lautenberg mentioned this -- i think senator nelson from florida will in a moment -- there are 81 judicial vacancies throughout the u.s. in my state of ohio faces what the court is saying is a judicial emergency. the nonpartisan administration office, the courts, the nonpartisan agency charged with running our federal courts recently declared a judicial emergency for the northern district of ohio. yet, mr. helmick, who has the enthusiastic support of all the federal judges in toledo, including those appointed by

republican presidents, was recommended by a bipartisan process created by senator voinovich and me. his nomination is still stuck even though there is a judicial emergency, even though he was approved in a bipartisan manner by the judiciary committee. the result is the litigants in the northern district are experiencing delays, having their cases resolved. in too many cases justice conferred, as the saying goes, can be justice denied. our nation's courts have been a beacon of hope sometimes, not always, for the vulnerable and the powerless. but this confirmation delay clogs our courts, obstructs justice and damages our democracy. maybe some people are playing political games here. by slow walking these judges, but in the end they might think it's cute, they might think it's funny, they may think they gained politically from it, but it does obstruct justice, it does clog our courts and it does damage our democracy. so it's not cute, it's not funny and it's not worthy of any political games in this chamber.

jeffrey helmick will make an outstanding judge in the northern district court, u.s. district court for the northern district of ohio. we need to confirm him and we need to confirm him this month before congress breaks. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the time on the democratic side be equally controlled between me and senator levin. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: and that would mean how many minutes? the presiding officer: six and a half minutes are remaining for the majority. mr. nelson: for the total? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. nelson: okay. well, then i will speed up my

remarks, mr. president, until i see senator levin come in. i too want to talk about the vacancies. there's no sense for all of this slow walking. fortunately in florida, we have a process that takes the politics out of the selections of judges. the two senators appoint a judicial nominating commission of prominent people all over the state, and they do the interviews. they do the selections of at least three for each vacancy. of course because they do this in a nonpartisan way -- notice what i said. i didn't say bipartisan. i said nonpartisan way, which is the way the selection of the judiciary ought to be done. because they do that in a nonpartisan way, all three of the nominees that come to the

two senators, any one of them can be a federal judge because they're all so qualified. but the agreement that we have with the white house, fortunately, the president could name whoever he wanted. he agrees to accept the nominee and make his pick from among the three that we send him if we approve all three after the two senators have in fact gone through and interviewed them. and so, we get a process. why should there be a delay on judges like that? there absolutely shouldn't. or take, for example, one of our federal judges. he was elevated by the president to the 11th circuit court of

appeal, judge jordan, unanimous out of the judiciary committee. at the end of the day, he won in this senate floor 94-5. but he was held up for four months. why? there's just too much gamesmanship and partisanship in the process, and particularly coming out of a state like florida, where it is nonpartisan in the selection of judges. well, we have two vacancies in the southern district and two vacancies in the middle district of florida right now. one of the judges is up on the docket. the two others have just come through and had their hearing in committee. the third -- the fourth is being vetted by the white house. let's go on and get these judges that there is no controversy, let's go on and get them approved. i see my colleague from michigan

here. i am to turn over my time to him for the remainder. and, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, let me thank my dear friend from florida. mr. president and members of the senate, we have a duty and obligation to carefully consider the votes that we take on -- our constitution has established a judicial branch with vitally important responsibilities and with considerable independence from the other branches of government. the founders were right to do so, but they also were right to give this body a say on nomination toss that independent branch. it is the one chance that the people, through their elected representatives, have to influence the makeup of the federal courts. so i do not begrudge any senator the right to carefully question

judicial nominees, to carefully weigh their qualifications and to exercise their best judgment as they exercise the responsibilities that the founders assigned to the senate. the question that we must all answer is this -- when do careful consideration and the exercise of good judgment become damaging delay? for justice, we can fail to serve our constituents by failing to properly scrutinize judicial nominees. we can fail to serve them by failing to act on these nominations after there has been sufficient time for the judiciary committee and the senate to scrutinize them. mr. president, today nearly one in ten federal judgeships is vacant. roughly half of all americans live in judicial districts or circuits in which the federal courts have declared a judicial

emergency, meaning that according to the standards established by the supreme court, residents face the prospect of unacceptable delays and having cases heard because vacancies have led to a troubling backlog of cases. it is a precept of western judicial thought that justice delayed is justice denied, that even a correct verdict can be a -- can be without justice if it comes too late to matter to the parties involved, especially if that delay is not justified by the circumstances or the complexity of the case. the dangers for our nation in these judicial emergencies are great. first, that americans may be robbed of justice by unjustified delay. second, that americans may come to doubt that the courts are capable of dispensing justice because they cannot function effectively. and third, that in seeking to

clear the growing backlog of cases, the courts may rush to judgment and may fail to apply the rigor that americans expect and deserve. the judiciary committee has favorably reported 17 judicial nominations that are now awaiting votes on the floor of the senate. mr. president, i would ask i be allowed -- unanimous consent that i be allowed to proceed for an additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, there are 17 judicial nominations now awaiting votes on the floor of the senate. there is no question that the wait for many of the judicial nominees of president obama has been unacceptable. under the previous president at this point in his term, the average district court nominee waited 22 days from favorable report by the judiciary committee to senate confirmation. the average circuit court nominee waited 28 days. by contrast, the average

district court nominee under president obama has faced a wait of 97 days, and the average for circuit court nominees is 138 days. yet, the vast majority of these nominees are not controversial. they enjoy bipartisan support. we should move quickly to confirm these nominees who have been receiving bipartisan backing particularly and to review, debate and act as expeditiously as we can on the small number of nominations about which there is some debate. mr. president, i would ask that the balance of my statement be inserted in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my republican colleagues,

senator kyl, coburn, isakson and heller, for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. johanns: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that when we turn to h.r. 2072, the export-import bank reauthorization act, that marie mclaughlin, a detailee to the senate finance committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of consideration of that legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today with my colleagues to talk about something that i think is an issue that without a solution will affect every single aspect of life in our country, and i'm speaking about our debt crisis, the impending fiscal cliff and the lack of a budget to address

those issues. as i said, i'm very pleased to be joined by my colleagues to talk about this issue. unfortunately, for whatever reason, the senate has lacked the will and the leadership to fulfill what i consider its most basic legislative function, writing and adopting a budget resolution. that has gone on for more than three years. while i understand we are rapidly approaching the time where presidential politics will consume the entire agenda, the united states national debt is also rapidly approaching a significant milestone, $16 trillion worth of debt. we should look no further than greece or spain to see what this level of debt would do to an economy if it goes unchecked. there are so many frightening statistics, but here is one.

america's per-capital national debt already significantly outpaces that of greece or spain. so as we watch them spiral further into crisis, we should be jolted into action by the very suggestion that our debt is equally as alarming. yet, we are unable to pass a basic budget resolution to get our spending in check, and that constitutes a lack of leadership. now, as i said, i have many colleagues here today who can talk about a better approach. i'd like to start today with senator johnny isakson. senator isakson has spent his career working on budget issues. senator isakson, what's the impact of no budget resolution for three years, and is there a better way? is there a better way to approach the budgeting process

than what we are dealing with now? mr. isakson: well, i thank the senator from nebraska for the question and for his service and as a former governor of the state of nebraska, he knows full well the responsibility we have in terms of budgets, but i'll tell you what the impact of no budget for three years is. no discipline for three years. and the result of no discipline for three years is you spend $10,400,000,000,000 without a budget. if i don't have a budget or a guidepost to go by and i'm spending $10.4 trillion, i'm making big mistakes. i'm making big mistakes not with my money but with the people of the united states of america's money. last night i did a telephone town hall back to georgia. at one time we had a little over 3,200 callers on the line. dwe after question was very simple -- how can you guys operate without a budget? why can't you get a budget? why can't you bring a budget to the floor? the fact of the matter is because our budget requirements cast out ten years of planning

for taxes, ten years of planning for expenditures, ten years of planning for the government, a lot of people don't want us to know what their plans are for the next ten years. but every american family in this country has had to sit around their kitchen table, reprioritize their expenditure, budget what income they have because of difficult economic times. the government should ask of itself only what it forces upon all of its people. and i have a suggestion to consider, a consider that 20 of our 50 states practice, 40% of our state governments now have biennial budget. a proposal that has been before this body for years. i'm proud to be a cosponsor with jeanne shaheen from new hampshire. it's a budget process and a discipline that ends this no budget and also memorializes the most important thing we need to do and the least thing we need to do in this body, and that's oversight. the biennial budget proposes we would do our budgeting on odd number years and appropriating on odd number years and do it for a two-year period rather than a one-year period. and then in the even numbered year, the election year, we

would do oversight of spending. we never do oversight. the best oversight person in the united states senate sits to my right. his name is tom coburn. he will be the closing act in this colloquy. he will show you some pictures which cast a lot more than a thousand words about the duplication of expenditure in this government primarily because we have no oversight, we have no discipline. we go back at appropriation year after year after year but never look at justifying what we spent in the year before. so the senator from nebraska, i say to the people of georgia and the people of the united states, i want to expect of myself and our government at least what is mandated upon you. i want us to begin to be accountable for our spending and hold accountable those who spend that money. do our appropriation in a balanced way, in a disciplined way and never again go a thousand days without a budget. never again go 10 trillion, $400 billion of spending without a budget. never look the american people and say you must do what you must do. it is absolutely time we stop the redundancy, start

prioritizing, start conducting oversight. when we do that, america will be better off, the fiscal policy will be better off. our debt and deficit will come down. we will return to the days of better prosperity and absolute accountability. i thank the senator from nebraska for giving me the opportunity to expound on the beenial budget. mr. johanns: i thank senator isakson. senator isakson referenced my time as governor of nebraska. but really i speak on behalf of all governors. the governor has to deliver a budget. in nebraska, we used a two-year budget, and that's what makes me proud to cosponsor your idea. it's the right approach. it just simply says we're going to do our very best to get a budget passed and do the oversight necessary to make sure that that budget is working. so i compliment you on that idea. definitely a better way forward, definitely a better way forward. let me, if i might now, turn to

senator kyl. senator kyl, when i was governor, i always had the first shot at delivering a budget, do a state of the state address. it really wasn't any that much different from the way it's done here in washington with the president's february budget proposal, the state of the union address coincides with that. now, with my budget, and i think most governors would say this, even when there was real arm wrestling with the legislative process, i always felt that i would get about 90% to 95% of my budget proposals across the finish line. it was a serious proposal. it was no gimmicks. it was a balanced budget. it didn't borrow money to balance the budget. how do you regard the president's budget submission these last years, and why isn't

it getting more support really in a bipartisan sort of way? mr. kyl: mr. president, i say to my colleague, first of all, what senator isakson said, as a governor, you had to balance the budget, you know how to do it, you understand the morns -- importance of it, and i appreciate your work on this colloquy here today in that regard. i would note that my own state of arizona just concluded its work on a budget. it was hard. the governor had her proposals, the state legislature did its work. it was hard slogging because they had to make tough decisions, but they did, and just last week they finished the budget in the legislative session. families have to do it. states have to do it. but here in the united states congress now, under the democratic control of the senate, for three straight years there hasn't been a budget. as you know, however, the president submits a budget each year. last year, his budget was,

frankly, met with derision from pundits, from experts, from economists who said it's not a serious proposal. and i looked up the number. last year, his budget was rejected 97-0 here in the senate. so what about this year? well, same thing. it wasn't a serious effort. it was a political document. everybody could see it. so they put it to a vote in the house of representatives. it was defeated 414-0. not a single democrat voted for the president's budget. they understood it wasn't serious. well, we'll have an opportunity to vote on the president's budget again this afternoon, and i expect the same fate. why? well, three quick points here. first of all, it accelerates our path to national bankruptcy. it fails to address entitlement spending. it has a slew of job-killing tax hikes. and it does nothing to effectuate even the president's own deficit reduction committee plan for reducing the deficit.

just a couple of numbers. it contains a whopping $1.8 trillion tax hike on individuals, small businesses, investment, family-owned farms. think about the job-killing nature, the wet blanket that puts over our economy, a $1.8 trillion tax hike. this comes on top of the tax hikes already embedded in obamacare which will extract an additional $4 billion from the taxpayer according to the joint economic committee. even with this tax hike, the president's budget would increase deficits by nearly $6.4 trillion over the next decade. you stop and think, wait a minute, aren't the tax hikes supposed to be there in order to balance the budget stphr well, you'd think so. but under the president's budget, not withstanding all of the new revenue from taxes, it increases the deficits by nearly $6.4 trillion and it would spend a staggering $45.4 trillion during the period of the budget, which is $1.2 trillion higher than the congressional budget

office baseline from last march. i know these statistics are mind-boggling and i hate to cite them. but you do need to back up what you're saying with the actual data. and that's the opponent. the president's budget is a job killer. it increases taxes, and it still never balances. and i would point out that under his budget, while spending would reach 23.5% of the economy this year and never get below 22% of g.d.p. over the next decade, the historical average is much lower. 20.8% of g.d.p. so bottom line: the president's budget would lock in the fourth straight year of deficits above $1 trillion and even though the president -- and here's what the president said -- he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term, end of quote. well, the president's budget would never balance not withstanding the huge tax increases. that's what's wrong with the president's budget.

it's why it's not going to pass today. it's why it didn't pass last year. mr. johanns: very clearly, what this body is saying, the united states senate, and the house of representatives when they vote on the president's budget, they're saying very clearly the president's budget spends too much. it taxes too much. and it borrows too much. and it doesn't solve any problem. i think that's the very clear unanimous message actually at this point from these bodies. this is not a serious budget proposal. mr. kyl: if i could add one other item. we know the problem is spending on entitlements, the mandatory spending. the only thing mandatory is it has to be spent unless we say something different. we don't have the courage around here to reform our entitlement programs to the point that they're going to be available for at least our kids by the time they retire, and in some cases they may not even be available for some of us. the other thing that i would want to say about the

president's budget is that it continues this glide path to insolvency for medicare, which the recent trustees report says has an unfunded liability of $26.4 trillion. in addition to spending too much, taxing too much and borrowing too much, it doesn't do anything about the biggest problem we have, which is the broken entitlement programs that are not going to work for the people who are currently anticipating that they'll be there for them when they retire. mr. johanns: senator kyl, that's an excellent point. if i could call on my colleague, senator coburn, who as much as any member of the united states senate, has been the watchdog when it comes to spending and programs that duplicate each other. he has been the person that oftentimes has stood on the floor alone and pointed out to everybody how much waste there is in the federal government. so, senator coburn, you have been a great leader. you were on the fiscal

commission, a member of the original gang of six. i'd like to hear your views on the budgetary mess that we find ourselves in now. mr. coburn: let me, first of all, thank my colleague. i'd ask unanimous consent, i have a couple of charts that are oversized. the reason they're oversized is because you can't get it all on one chart. and i'd ask unanimous consent to display those charts if i might. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: what most people don't realize is the federal government is now twice the size it was in 2001. think about that. think about that. we're spending twice as much money as we did in 2001. as a matter of fact, if you go back 15 years, our deficit this year is bigger than what our entire budget was. that's how out of control the federal government is. and the point of a budget, there

is a political reason we're not having a budget. everybody understands that. nobody's going to say it. the political reason that no budget was proposed and run through the senate to create a conference committee with the house is because we don't want to make the hard choices in election year. and budgets for families are about making hard choices. and yet here we're supposed to represent leadership in our country, and we refuse to make hard choices about the direction. i had the great opportunity to speak with some members in the war college class here not long ago, and we got into talking about budget. and they said do you realize how difficult it is for us to try to spend money when you send us a continuing resolution and we don't know about it until ten days before it's going to take effect? how difficult it is for us to try to manage in a prudent way the money that the federal government spends when we have

no budgetary guidelines? there is waste out the kazoo when you ask us to do that. so the very fact, regardless of the fact that there's a law that says we will pass a budget which has been totally ignored by the majority leader is the consequence of that are tremendous. what most people talk about is how do we get out of the problem. what i would put forward in terms of our budget, is there's not a problem in front of our country we can't solve. what we lack is leadership to pull us together as americans to say here's the problems. here are the solutions. let's find the compromise in the middle for the solutions and let's solve our problem. we have refused to do that. but most importantly, we refuse to look at ourselves. and i have a couple of examples. the g.a.o. put out its second annual report. the first one was last year.

the second annual report this year in terms of duplicated programs. and we've had amendments on this floor fail routinely that said we ought to know what we're doing before we pass another bill. we ought to know what's already out there. that's been rejected by my colleagues. but i'm going to show you charts that shows you how ridiculous we are in terms of how we're well-meaning but absolutely stupid in terms of how we address problems that we perceive are the federal government's role. the g.a.o. put out a list of duplications. and i'm just going to read a few of them. i've given speeches on the floor of others. but 209 different programs -- 209 different programs in the federal government for science, technology, engineering and math initiatives for our education system. so, we just spend $3 billion a year on that. the overlap is unbelievable.

and here's the chart. it shows all the different programs with all the different agencies involved. all of them overlapping. most of the money wasted in terms of how we spend it because there's no concentration. there's no coordination. and what we have sari dick includes array -- is a ridiculous array. not that it's wrong to want to have more science, more technology, more engineers and more math students. but what we've done is we're spending all the money on the bureaucracy when we could have five programs -- one for upper level, one for lower level, one for minorities, one for disadvantaged, one for others. here's the complex. it's mind-boggling how many programs we have, and there's not a metric to measure whether any one of these is effective. and that's $3 billion a year. i would tell you that we could

have one-tenth as many programs and spend one half as much money and have more students come out with science, technology, engineering and math background. but we've decided to do it piecemeal and never do the oversight and never consolidate. if we want to get out of a $1 trillion deficit, we do it $1 billion at a time. you don't do it with $1 trillion at a time. the other program which is even more difficult to ascertain is in the department of justice grants. let me go through those if i may just for a second to show there's 253 duplicative programs in the department of justice. we spend a total of $3.9 billion a year. and here's what g.a.o. tells us. people who apply for one grant in d.o.j. for one thing turn

around and apply somewhere else for exactly the same thing. the department of justice doesn't know. they just gave them two grants for exactly the same thing, because there's so many different grant programs and nobody's watching the store. the point is, is nobody would run their household this way. no business would operate this way. states that are successful don't operate this way. and the reason we do this is because we don't have a budget and we don't have any oversight and we're not minding the store. and the way to change what's coming for our country is to start doing everything that's necessary to address the problem. and the problem is this: we're spending money we do not have on things we do not need. and nobody in congress wants to do the hard work of ferreting out what works and what doesn't and making the hard choice, because every one of these programs has a constituency.

and so the parochialism and the constituent constituency in short-term thinking we're now bound up in keeps us from saving ourselves. last quote -- and i'll finish up with this -- john adams said there has yet to be a democracy that did not murder itself. we're on that way if we don't change direction. it's not a democrat-republican problem. it's all our problem. and it won't matter what your political persuasion is when we face the very difficult coming times if we don't respond with a cogent budget for this country. mr. johanns: senator coburn, thank you so much for that. you look at those charts, and you just reach the conclusion inescapably that if we don't start doing oversight and start figuring this out, we're not going to solve this problem.

your reputation as a watchdog of the federal government is well earned. let me now, if i could, turn to my colleague, senator heller. senator heller, you bring great experience here. you might be the newest member of the united states senate -- i think you are -- but you have great experience on the house side. you've seen how the budget process works there. you now have some experience on the senate side. you see the lack of a budget process. i'd like to you offer some thoughts on what's broken here, what we might do to fix this. mr. heller: i thank the gentleman from nevada for yield -- the gentleman from nebraska for yielding time, and also those from oklahoma and arizona also for this colloquy we're having today. the ability to talk about issues that, frankly, the other side won't talk about. in fact, their conspicuous absence today on the other side is clear of the depth of their

budget. as you know, we have not had a budget for the last three years, so i rise today in support of a serious debate concerning the direction of our nation. three years have passed since congress adopted a binding budget resolution. in this light, i respectfully submit that the american people do not believe that today's debate is serious. they know the senate is not going to adopt a budget. and once again ignore one of the most basic and important jobs of congress. what the senate is doing this week could be considered political comity if the stakes weren't so high. the fact is that this is not a serious discussion. in may of last year the majority leader stated there is no need to have a democratic budget, in my opinion. it would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage. as early as february of this year it was stated by the

majority leader that there is no need to bring a budget to the floor this year. if that's the case, this week's debate is nothing more than a political sideshow, and the american people are tired of it. ever wonder why the approval rating of congress is so low? they hate washington because it spends its time on stunts like this instead of working together for the good of the country, pushing votes for campaign press releases instead of solving problems. the bottom line as if congress does not do its job, then its members should not get paid. and that is exactly what i have proposed with a no budget, no pay act. the american people know that in an election year too many of their representatives in washington are afraid of the tough choices that would help get our nation on a path of fiscal sanity. most of the people watching the so-called budget debate will witness exactly what they've come to expect from washington:

republicans blaming democrats, democrats blaming republicans. at the end of the day all will will -- we'll have accomplished is filling another page in the "congressional record." unfortunately, americans will face the same fiscal disasters that they did before this debate. unless we change course, federal spending per household is projected to rise to $34,602 by the year 2022, a 15% increase in one decade. the government's own actuaries tell us that medicare is going bankrupt in ten years. social security one decade later. both sides should be willing to come together to strengthen and preserve these programs for future generations instead of simply ignoring the problems because it's inconvenient in an election year.

our national debt will reach $16 trillion before the end of the year, and the federal government's unfunded obligations will total some $100 trillion. yet there will be no budget this year, just like there has been no budget for the past three years. you cannot look beyond the beltway and say this failure of leadership hasn't had tremendous impact on the people we represent. national unemployment has registered above 8% for the last 38 months. nevada has led the nation in unemployment for more than two years. almost everyone i speak to in nevada, businesses, job creators, elected officials and families speak of the uncertainty that has characterized their lives in this economy. we're not moving forward as a nation, and it's no surprise to these no-nonsense folks. they know from everyday life in

their businesses and in their households that you can't move forward without a plan. when americans look to washington, they see no meaningful proposal, no viable plan and no progress. there are those who claim that the budget control act is a budget, and i strongly disagree. this bill does not establish priorities or a path forward for our nation as a real budget should. it does not provide certainty nor does it address many of the pressing fiscal problems we have today. if the budget control act was truly a budget, there would be no need for this discussion today. it's past time for congress to hold itself accountable. that's why i have advocated my no budget, no pay act for nearly a year. my legislation calls on house and senate to pass a concurrent budget resolution and the

regular appropriation bill before the beginning of each fiscal year. failure to do so would result in a loss of pay until we take our job seriously and make these bills our legislative priority. the congressional budget act of 1974 already requires congress to pass a budget by april 15. my bill creates an enforcement mechanism to further encourage members of congress to do their constitutional duty. i have spoken on this floor previously about no budget and no pay, but i believe now is the time to consider whether we are willing to make this promise to our constituents. i believe it's more important now than ever because the american people are increasingly losing confidence in congress and their ability to deliver solutions. no budget no pay is not a silver bullet solution to our nation's fiscal challenges, but it would indicate that we are hearing the

concerns of the american people and are willing to participate in the dialogue necessary to get our country moving again. i am pleased that ten of my senate colleagues have cosponsored this important effort and others have expressed support for no budget no pay on the senate floor. i am especially grateful to senators lieberman and collins for holding a hearing to discussion no budget no pay as a meaningful proposal that would help hold congress accountable to the american people. this bipartisan, bye cameral -- bicameral proposal is worthy of the senate's time if we're serious about regaining the trust of the american people of whom we are supposed to be representing. my colleagues, our nation can literally no longer afford to survive on sound bites and press releases about the importance of budgeting. we need to encourage -- we need to engage in the serious business of budgeting for our

nation's future. that work should start today, and sadly i simply don't believe we will make the tough choices necessary until members of congress have more skin in the game. i will continue calling for the adoption of no pay no budget -- the no budget no pay act. the presiding officer: the republicans' time has expired. mr. johanns: thank you. we yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his request? mr. johanns: yes, i will withhold my request. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 396, h.r. 2072, an act to reauthorize the export-import bank of the united states, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we move to amendment number 2100 to h.r. 2072. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from utah, mr. lee, proposes an amendment numbered 2100. at the appropriate place, insert the following -- section, termination of export-import bank of the united states. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: it's time that we wind down the export-import bank. in my amendment, -- and my amendment, amendment numbered 2100, would do precisely that. the american people cannot be the world's financial backstop. the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. businesses in utah and across the country are not receiving government help and are shutting their doors after decades serving their communities. we should not through this government be adding insult to

injury by using tax money they contributed to prop up companies overseas. we need to end the corporate welfare that distorts the market and feeds crony capitalism. the corporations that largely benefit from the ex-im bank should have no trouble marshaling their resources to compete in today's economy. if they are struggling, then they are most likely not deserving of taxpayer help, and if they are turning billions in profit, then they clearly do not need taxpayer-subsidized loans. further, government subsidies breed undue favoritism from government bureaucrats who control where the money goes. unless we want more solyndras, we should end the practice immediately. some have suggested that the ex-im bank is good for businesses. mr. president, what's best for american businesses is getting the federal government out of their way, letting them operate without burdensome government

regulations and without a complex tax system. having the government pick winners and losers does not make industries stronger and makes them more dependent on subsidies, and when government is picking who wins, the loser is always the taxpayer. we have an opportunity today to reverse the status quo and defend the american taxpayer. my amendment winds down the ex-im bank. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, amendment number 2100. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i suggest the dispensing of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i rise to ask my colleagues to pass the export-import bank legislation before us. this debate this morning is about jobs, it's about manufacturing jobs, and it's about u.s. manufacturing jobs. and that is because this bank is one of the most powerful tools that we have for manufacturing jobs in america. it's a debate about whether this chamber believes that access to financing is a key tool for u.s. companies to compete on an international basis when they are trying to get u.s. manufactured products sold overseas. in fiscal year 2011 alone, the bank supported nearly 290,000

export-created jobs in america. but those are the jobs that are going to be threatened if this chamber does not act. that is because this authority expires on may 31. that's right just 16 days from now and between now and then the house is in session for only five days. so we can't afford to take this to the brink one more time with amendments passed by the senate today that are really just amendments that are gutting the export-import bank. these five amendments that will be considered basically would lapse the bank's authority and this would put into the debate more uncertainty about our economy. we need to act now to renew the bank's charter, and businesses can't wait. they need the planning and certainty to hire more people and failing to act will stifle u.s. economic opportunity. that's why nearly two dozen governors, both democrats and republicans alike, have urged

for the bank's extension, and so has the chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, and small business association. mr. president, i'd like to enter into the record a chart that is the jobs supported by ex-im financing by each state so members if they'd like to can come down and look at both the revenue generated and the jobs that were supported. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. can'twell: the default rate on the bank is consistently less than 2%, lower than most commercial lending. i'm sure we'll hear a lot about that debate today. but since, the f.b.i. has returned $3.7 billion to the u.s. treasury above and onto the cost of operation. ms. cantwell: so yes, my colleagues, this is something that is making money for the federal government, so not only is it helping u.s. manufacturers sell their products overseas, financing in a way that i think is equivalent to what the small business administration does, help provide a certain level of

financing that makes deals come through, i think that's why you find that banks are supportive of this. the money is back into the u.s. taxpayers' pocket and it supports us winning in a global situation by getting our products sold. so it has been incredibly helpful to our economy, zero cost to the taxpayers, and, in fact, the nonpartisan congressional budget office concluded that a four-year reauthorization of the bank would reduce the deficit by up to $900 million over five years. so the bank works for businesses, it works for u.s. taxpayers. so there is a compromise that is before us, and i know that it may not be the compromise i see my colleague from south carolina on the floor, it may not be the compromise he or i would have written to this legislation, but nonetheless it's a compromise and it's time to act. the reason i say that is because so many states also are counting

on the export-import bank just like in washington state. pennsylvania, for example, has over $1.4 billion in exports and 9,800 jobs related to the ex-im bank. massachusetts, another state, 566 million. this is from the annual report of the ex-im bank in 2011. so $566 million of economic revenue generated in massachusetts and over 4,000 jobs. why? because we helped massachusetts exporters get access to capital so they could sell their products overseas and win in the international marketplace. texas, another example. $4.9 billion in exports. 35,274 jobs. these are jobs that america needs. this is a global economy in which america needs to be able to compete. so getting access to capital so that products can be sold is a critically important issue.

florida, another great example of the support of the ex-im bank. $1.1 billion in exports, and over 700 -- 7,643 jobs. another big winner. the state of north carolina, $456 million in exports, and 3,309 jobs. and ohio, just another example of manufacturers and businesses, $398 million in exports and 2,888 jobs. so while there are many people who would like to say that this program should be discontinued, if they are not in favor, i guess, i'm sure some of my colleagues aren't, because there are many programs that they would like to get rid of, i would say this is a program that's good for the u.s. taxpayers. the ex-im bank generates $3.7 billion for u.s. taxpayers since 2005.

since what is this debate about? i would say that the underlying amendments that my colleagues are offering are tying trying to gut the ex-im bank. they simply don't like it, want to get rid of it or say it is not a viable tool. i guess because one in four jobs in washington state are based on trade i know how critically important it is whoo whr you're an agriculture product or selling airplanes, whether you're selling music stands as one company we saw or selling grain silos, you need to be able to compete in an international marketplace and you need to be able to get sales of those products. so this has been a very viable and important tool. some of my colleagues have previously raised concerns about the bank's trarnz pearns and oversize -- transparency and oversight and this has been heard in this legislation. i'll like to talk about the way this compromise bill addresses those concerns. there is more oversight. under the amended bill we would have a quarterly report on its

default rate and the first of the reports would be due september of this year. so the bank has historically maintained a low default rate of less than 2% but under this provision if the default rate reaches 2% or higher the bank will have to develop a plan to fix the problem and report to congress within one month. if the default rate stays above 2% more than six months they will be subject to review of an independent auditor. these i think are very viable and important additions to the legislation, and not only would the auditor be there to help fix what was going on, but would have the oversight for anything that was involved with the bank that they needed to report on. there's less risk. second change to the underlying bill. the government accountability office must study and report back to tbang safeguards that prevent -- bank safeguards that prevent it from taking loans that are too risky. because the bank has had historically low default rate,

we're happy to add this language, but it just is another layer of protection on something that is performing and performing well, but happy to add that to the legislation. more public input. the bank will have to open public comment period for transactions greater than $100 million and notify congress about these transactions so more transparency on somewhat consider the bigger financial loans that the bank is involved in. and fourth, more accountability. there is an annual report that the bank has to justify in the need of every transaction. every transaction. that way, the public will know if the bank has acted because a private lender would not have or if it acted in response to foreign export credit agencies. and fifth, the treasury must engage nations in discussions about the need for export financing worldwide. now, i know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would hope that the

president would just end all export financing and leave that discussion at the world trade organizations. i would ask my colleagues, what's the difference between this and the small business administration that provides an opportunity, a bridging of capital between small businesses and the opportunities to join with private financing to make deals happen. i believe because as i said, i live in a state where we know how beneficial export markets are to our products. whether they are cherries, whether they are apples, whether they're airplanes, whether they're a variety of new technologies, these products are winning the day in an international marketplace, and they're creating jobs. so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would like to end this program or to say that it ought to be ended on an international basis, we're happy to hear what the world community wants to debate and discuss in this basis, but i

will say in the moment of crisis of our financial institutions, when one of the supposedly most risk-averse institutions can't figure out why it lost $2 billion and you want small businesses across america to pay the price for the fact that they can't get financing of their products sold in an international marketplace? we ought to wake up here and understand that this is about helping small businesses and helping us win the day for products that are created in the united states. created in the united states, and sold abroad. so, mr. president, the compromise legislation that's offered here today is the best path forward. these amendments are an attempt to cut gut the underlying bill and those who would like to stop the authorization of the bank and have it curtailed because as i said, we only have about five legislative days given the house's schedule, to get this done. they would like to tell all those businesses i just mentioned and nr those states, ohio, pennsylvania, florida,

and others, that we don't know anymore whether this program exists and let's actually stop the funding and lose jobs. so i know that there are people in my state, larry stone from skafco, they gave me a message that the american people want to us focus on creating jobs and supporting businesses. they want a program like this to continue, and they want the jobs that it creates for their communities. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. i'm sorry. the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the ?avment they've been approved by the majority and minority leader and i ask unanimous consent these requests are agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i apologize to my colleague from south carolina. thank you. the presiding officer: the

senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i was scheduled, i would yield, i think senator corker has an amendment, has something to go to at noon. i'd like to yield to him, let him go ahead of me with the understanding i could speak five minutes after he's done. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i thank the senator from south carolina and certainly the senator from washington state. i put my credentials for supporting exports up against anybody here, and i think the purpose of us being in this body is to try to create good policies, and i have an amendment i'd like to call up. it's amendment numbered 2102 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from tennessee mr. corker proposes amendment numbered 2102. mr. cork jerks i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: i'll be very brief. again, this amendment is very simple and does two things that i would think especially the

senator from washington would support are after all that we've gone through and especially in her alluding to some of the most recent developments in the financial system. but what we would -- what we will do with this amendment that i hope will receive broad support in this body is number one, the ex-im bank is set up to finance transactions that cannot be financed in the private sector. i think that's the purpose for it to be here. and so number one, it would cause the ex-im bank to certify that there is no private-sector financing or at least no private-sector financing at a reasonable cost before any loan goes through at the ex-im bank. the the second piece, which i think is very, very important, the way the ex-im bank is set up right now, there are no capital requirements. the senator from washington was just talking about something that happened at j.p. morgan. fofortunately, we have put in place since the financial

crisis, very strong capital requirements at our financial institutions. what that has done is to make them healthy and caused them to with able to withstand as they may happen. the ex-im bank is set up to finance things that no other bank will finance, and yet it has no capital requirements other than having to maintain $1 billion. so they're able to loan per this new legislation $140 billion, but they only have to have $1 billion in capital reserve reses which means you are a creating with this mechanism a 140-1 lefnlg ratios. what we've just gone through with our entire financial system is a process to make sure we have adequate cavment so what our amendment does is just require that the ex-im bank add adhere to the normal, sound

financial practices that we want our financial institutions across our country to adhere to by establishing a 10% capital base. so, again, i think this is a very good government amendment. we don't want to see the same thing happen with ex-im bank that we've seen happen with fannie, with freddie, with so many of our institutions in this country that did not have proper capital reserves. so i urge strong support for this amendment, which will make the ex-im bank something that ensures or hopefully helps ensure that our u.s. taxpayers are never in the situation where we have to come to the aid of this institution because it doesn't have the proper capital standards in place that i think people in this body on both sides of the aisle have yoaf whelmingly -- have overwhelmingly supported for the private sector. i hate to see us be in a situation where we want to create something in government

that risks taxpayers' moneys when we've just gone through a process of understanding that it's very important for the financial institutions of our country to have appropriate capital standards. here we are getting ready to pass legislation on this floor which, i'm sorry, has almost no capital standards in place because you only have to have $1 billion -- that's all -- the ex-im bank, $1 billion against $140 billion loan base. i think anybody here thinking about this understands those standards are not nearly appropriate, and i hope that this amendment will receive overwhelming support. it is my sense if we pass this, the house would easily pass this, and contrary to what the senator from washington was saying, i think this would make the legislation better, and my sense is receive overwhelming support in the house, if added to it. with that, i yield the floor, and i thank the gentleman from

south carolina for his tremendous courtesy. gramm grammr. graham: mr. presi? the presiding officer: the snoer from south carolina. mr. graham: i rise s in support of compromise offered boy senator cantwell. six years ago the congress reauthorized the export-import bank. if you're in business like boeing and g.e. and thousands of other companies out there that are making products in the united states selling them overseas, the idea that the congress would by voice vote reauthorize the bank had to make you bheeive that this model -- believe that this model of doing business would be made available to you. here we are later down the road. a lot of concern about the bank. and some people actually want to do away with it. i understand free markets pretty well, and i would love to live in a world where no country interfered in the marketplace at all and that the best products would win based on a level playing field. but why do we have the

export-import bank. it is about 70 years old. there is a long record here. products made in america sold overseas sometimes, because of the volatile nature of the region in question, traditional banks won't lend money. so what happened about 70 years ago is we created a bank to help us export products, and that bank, the export-import bank, as senator cantwell said, makes money, doesn't lose money, and it's been a sound way to get american-made products into the international marketplace. here's the reality: canada, france, germany, italy, japan, britain, brazil, china, and india all have export banks of their own. the g-7 countries that we compete against between 2006 and 2010 doubled the amount of ex-im financinfinancing available in r countries. this is what american businesses are competing against. our good friend up north,

canada, is one-tenth our size. the canadian ex-im bank did $100 billion worth of financing for canadian-made products last year compared to $32 billion in support of american manufacturers. the only area of our economy that's been strong lately is exports. so imagine this: america does away with the export-import bank. all the countries i've just described have their banks available to their manufacturers. boeing makes planes in washington and south carolina. eight out of ten airplanes are a boeing aircraft, the 78, are sold based on export-import financing. eight out of ten. that's why they needed a second line of production. they're competing against airbus. france has three export-import banks. china -- china's export-import bank is larger than the united states, germany, canada, and britain combined. now it's one thing to do reform. it is another thing to

unilaterally surrender. tses one thing -- it is one thing to lead the world. it is another to put the products made in america rat risk unnecessarily. the legislation in the house did compel the department of treasury to get these export-import banks wound down over time. if we could do that, great, because i think the american worker and companies are compete knit where in the world on a level playing feevmentd at the end of the day, this is about wheajst whether or not we're going to unilaterally surrender. we're weeks away. senator corker has a decent amendment of but it doesn't get to us where we need to be at this late hour. one part of his amendment is that you can't make a loan under the export-import bank until the company proves that the other countries in question are not offering loans in that area. that's pretty hard to do when countries like china are not very transparent. so this amendment, is billed as

good government. i know his motivations are sound. but at this late hour, it will bring the legislation down and quite frankly the second prong of what he's proposing i think is a real burden to put on american businesses at a time when it is hard enough already to create jobs in america. so, to those who want to end the bank without other countries doing so, i think you would be doing a great disservice to people in this country who are selling products overseas. in my state aloarntion you would be destroying the ability of the boeing company to grow in south carolina. g.e. makes gas turbines in gre greenville, south carolina. one-third of those turbines made in greenville are sold ex-im financing. if you can get the other parts of the world do this, count me in. until we do it great, i am going to allow this bank t to stay in business because it makes money, it doesn't lose money. there is a difference between leading the world and putting your companies at risk and the world in reality. the relate tight is that export

financing is growing, it is not being reduced. this bill nasd the house was 330 votes. we live in a time in congress where you can't hardly declare sunday as a holiday. but 330 members of the house voted to extend in bank for three years with reforms. count me in the reform caisson. some people say this bank has kind of gotten out of its lane is making loans thatly are not -- that reallloy are not traditionally export-import loans. some people say the bank is not transparent enough. i agree with that. bottom line, it has been reformed. 62% of the republican conference in the house volted t house voto reauthorize this. so i want to acknowledge representative hoyer and those in my camp that tried you to bring in. they produced a exrornlings as senator cantwell said that would be different than i would have wrote but it truly is reform. it are alouse three-year extension to the bank at $140

billion with reforms that are quite frankly i think common sense. and 62% of the house republicans supported this. the tea party was split. so at the end the day we have a decision to make as a senate. are we going to allow this bank to fail? are we going to allow the bank to stay in business under a new way of doing business? i think it would be a travesty and a detrimental event to the economy of this country if this bank were to go out of business and everybody we compete with their banks are doubling in size. if you want to grow the footprint in america of selling products made in america overseas, this bank has a niche where you cannot find traditional financialing, this bank allows american products to be sold. and i think a very sound business practices. bank is making money. the capitalization requirements, there are no subprime mortgages here. this is about selling american

products to a willing buyer overseas where you can't find traditional financing. and our friends in china are sometimes not our prendz friends. their bank is going like gang busters. the last thing i will do with my vote is take an american company that's struggling to make it and put them at a disadvantage against the chinese or any other country that's doing business. we will wind these things together or we will stay in business to allow those in america to make products and sell them overseas. from a south carolina perspective, this is a very big deal. it was a big deal to get boeing to come to south carolina fl this is a request by boeing and many other small businesses like mt. vernon mills to keep the promise around. i will end where i start. six years ago those people in the manufacturing community had the bank reauthorize by voice vote. they set up a business model

assuming the bank was going to be around because nobody even objected to it enough to get a roll call. six years later we can't make wild, radical change. we made reforms, but the worst thing we could do is tell the business community six years ago by voice vote this bank will be in place and six years later do away with it when no one else is doing away with their banks. that makes no sense to me. that is not good government. that to me is unilateral surrender. i don't want to unilaterally disarm when we're competing against the soviets in the cold car and i sure as heck don't want to disarm in a world economy very much interconnected. so these raiments are ideologically driven. senator corker is trying to make it better but there is a component of his amendment that would make it difficult for our companies to get a loan. so at the end of the day, we need to vote these amendments down and pass the house product. i thank you, mr. president. to the members of the house, republicans and democrats, you worked this out among ourselves

in a way that i think the senate should embrace and endorse and to senator reid and senator mcconnell, we're allowing votes on an important piece of legislation. the senate is operating in the best traditions of the yours senate. people have their say. people get to vote. higher's my say: bring your amendments to the floor. i respect your ideological posmghts i respect the idea that the free market is where we want toasmg but i'm asking my colleagues not to put american businesses at risk at a time when our economy is on its knees. do not destroy this bank at a time when competitor nations are doubling the size of theirs. i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoer from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate my colleague from south carolina coming down to talk about this important tool for u.s. manufacturers ans why it i--and why it is important is state and why we need to get on the impis of passing this house legislation that was a compromise and involved many

people. and as my colleague from south carolina stated, a very robust vote out of the u.s. house of representatives. i'd also like to say a few words about my colleague's amendment, senator corker. i'll trust wit what my colleague says from south carolina, that the amendment may be seen as a reform of the system, well-intended. but i can tell you it will have very, very adverse affects. -- effects. the corke corker amendment is cg for a 10% ratio. the bank has had a default rate of less than 2%, 1. ^ 5%. so raising the reserve ratio would have a very adverse effect on the bank itself. and it would quadruple the reserves and basically cause problems with the bank in how it is leveraged. so if this is an