he was able to thank some personal, sketch the political director like matteo renzi, that's not invisible. in that case he becomes indispensable to the president and he gets much more power by threatening to resign. because this would mean the end of this presidency. so we are in this position. we don't know because it will be two months. there's overdue one electoral to feed. so we will see. ..

he is obviously a very astute politician but he hasn't got a great deal of experience so we have to see how he builds up these policies he is stating and whether he will be capable of doing it and the other thing is you have to see what and who they threw their support behind next. >> less austerity, more reform. what do you think he can do? >> given 1,000 euro factory base to low-income families as a first step. >> the fact remains it lee has major challenges and the debt is extremely high. a quarter of the euro zone debt is in italy and financing of

that on a weekly basis is a major challenge, maintaining market access would be extremely important. css to run because of his high debts, has to run a sizable primary which they have been successful in recent years but not as high as they planned to do and the reform agenda, potential growth in italy is extremely low. so the reform agenda to increase that potential growth had to encompass labor market reforms which are extremely difficult to deliver given the constituency of the prime minister and services reform which in italys other countries for instance spain. he needs the support and political backing to be able to

deliver a very challenging agenda so we are only at the speed inning of the road. >> a brief comment on that. less austerity, more reform, depends what you mean by austerity. in this case we didn't have a choice to apply austerity to the public finances, the deficit got to a very high level and if we hadn't taken visible action to reassure the markets our borrowing costs of gone through the roof, we don't have the dollar as a reserve currency so we watch carefully what we had to do so we felt we had to do that. at the same time what we did was tried to balance that policy, bringing down public debt with an expensive policy in terms of pro-business policies encouraging investment and private sector to get going. since the present government came to power in 2010 we created them to million jobs in the private sector and shared 600,000 in the public sector so we tried to move the growth towards the private sector and

take away the requirement on the public sector and the government and taxpayer to put too much money into a stimulus package so when you talk about austerity need to look at the economy as a whole and see where you need to do austerity and other areas with austerity in the public sector with an expensive policy encouraging public sector to take up the slack. we haven't got the of credit from banks yet. we would like to see more of the financial sector in promoting growth than we have at the moment but it is going in the right direction. the second thing i would add is as we look at reform, we need to do more in terms of reform. and that is how we are going to become more competitive and deal with structural imbalances and i put in a little plug at the same time, more free trade between the european union and the united states of america, half of the world's gdp between us will help make a difference and consolidate the recovery and it

is win/win where we can get additional gross, more jobs and more trade in both directions across the atlantic. >> on bose points. >> austerity, growth, no one is that a better place to talk about austerity than an island, during tough years for us in our program we took 18% out of gdp to a combination of cutbacks and expenditure and we see the benefits of the economy winning through and we haven't got time to take you through all the commercials for how well ireland is doing but no question we are coming through in good shape but we saw in our election results that austerity fatigue is clear these there and despite the positive indicators, employment creation, gross creation, that sends a message to the government that we need to

soften the edges of this austerity and you saw that message more rightly across europe. you asked about the italian prime minister. i won't get into the details of the country. implicit in what you said, main opponents, and so rightfully quoted all of these elegant statements of all these leaders and they go in the same direction, we got to be more intelligent and try the short end, the real problem is it is easy to say these things that tough to do it. we have been saying in europe for so long, i came as ambassador from brussels in 2001, the excitement of everything that followed the constitutional convention.

it was the same challenge we are trying to address, we have to connect better and be more relevant, reach the citizens, we wrote the script essentially. back then, still trying to actually find ways to do it to bring all the member states along and resonate with the public. there is no difficulty, we can stand up and give the speeches ideally the way europe needs to go forward, this and that and so on but the challenge for us to do it is so huge. let me echo peter john westmacott on that. there may be short-term complications because of the midterm elections, we may see some little differences in europe as well. it is the response to that big

question, how we try to channel globalization and the u.s. and europe have huge responsibilities there. a win/win keeps it fair and balanced and seemed to be so, riding the tide of globalization, and that is what is needed. and intelligence teacher is partly the answer rather than the problem. >> thank you very much. we go to a little question/answer mode. to one not be one question needed an answer but a few points and we will try to make it as interactive as possible. could you please identify yourself so everybody knows? >> i am a senior vice president at the german national fund. thank you for organizing this

excellent panel. two questions. one of the great successes of the european union has been the enlargement, heralded over the past couple years as mentioned, we're celebrating ten years of the big bank, what do these the elections mean for the future of enlargement? as one says in washington we have the unfinished business person in the balkans and turkey, a corporate of geographical europe that is not yet integrated. will we see bureaucracy with a conveyor belt of the allotment process? we are not expecting new members until 2020, will we be hearing the member states saying no to enlargement because that is what the public wants to here? not unrelated to that is the second question, ukraine. has ukraine been a wake-up call like the elections have been, geopolitics for many of us, we knew it was never out, for some, they thought was pushed to the side. will this lead to a more

concerted european security policy? thank you. >> thank you for this great country station. i heard from the peterson institute, getting into a technical aspect if i could on the economics of this which is the major initiative for europe in the euro zone this year is banking union. just a very straightforward but complicated question which is the motivation for banking union in part explicitly was to address the so-called duma loop of the relationship between sovereigns and the banks that held their debts and this potential risk and we don't hear much about that anymore and in fact i believe sovereigns, banks and the euro zone known as much if not more sovereign debt than they did at the beginning of the crisis so the question is straightforward, sovereigns are

treated as riskless assets and the ecb's new supervisory mechanism, they have not said that is not the case, should be treated as a risk assets. addressing in the context of a banking union, the relationship between sovereigns and banks, are sovereigns riskless or not? >> we will turn. >> i want to come back to the leadership. >> the deputy trader presents. >> in the leadership question, it is critical for dealing with a whole host of challenges in the u.s. and europe, going into the e election was anticipated the far right and far left would

make gains, it was not wholly unexpected. the concern i saw was not that we didn't know who was going to emerge as the likely candidate for presidency but there was no question he or she would be chosen. the member states have said we could read the lisbon treaty, it is our decision to make. members of parliament have said it is the will of the people as expressed in the elections so to isabelle kumar's term let's be constructive. what is the constructive way forward and how soon do you think this question can be resolved so we don't have a situation of a lame-duck commission, we don't have the president of the council on foreign minister to take terribly long. >> i want to add information

that according to the agreement or treaty, not sure of the dates but yesterday i read a piece that said the president of the commission which was not the case before, actually had to also agree to the appointment of every commissioner so in the past it was the council appointing the president and the commissioners, the council appoints the president, has a lot of influence and gets nominated but the president has the additional power of signing off, what that means in practice we will see. >> your news in washington. a short one on enlargement. what impact will a successful scottish referendum have on europe going forward. >> with the mean by successful? >> successful.

in the eyes of the independent. >> talking about getting that -- should reminds me of a well-known phrase we all know what to do, we don't know how to get elected to do it. having gotten elected in any way, it was one of those famous sentences that went around last year so the first one, on the enlargement issue, i have to be terminally grateful to my friend from serbia that he mentioned turkey. anyway, i don't think an enlargement is imminent, the last thing people want to hear about at this point but the whole issue of neighborhood, ukraine, baldwin's, we don't have time for the turkish question but peter is one of the world specialists of that but how will all this affect an

enlargement? is it just kind of dead or is there some hope? who would like to deal with that? >> i will deal with it. some of it is already underway and that machinery is already in motion. if i am correct, montnegro in the wings to join the others find these free agreements that have to wait a long time. and there is enlargement fatigue and you can't expect another wave following serbia and montenegro joining, it will be awhile before that happens again mostly because these concerns over the economy, freedom of movement and the arguments of britain, romania and bulgaria joining an coming to europe, attacking a certain amount of internal immigration. those issues have to be resolved

to some degree, slightly more open debate before the enlargement process as it has done in the past. >> in the views on ukraine? what extent does the ukraine crisis call for the extent to increase pressure to have a more cohesive european foreign policy and security policy? >> the enlargement agenda, it was in the pipeline, others waiting a bit longer, a leapfrog, others moved a bit more rapidly in that direction. we take the view that enlargement is one of the great democracy building successes of the european union consolidating gains and freedom of speech and open market economics and democracy in countries which were part of the warsaw pact.

we still think that it is the right direction to travel. it will perhaps take pause at the moment. we knew there would be a large waiver enlargement. some of the concerns people expressed about immigration, free movement of labor, population, i won't say discounted but exaggerated. we all heard over many many years there are great fear is that if you bring in a relatively poor member state that economies will be flooded with people seeking better paying jobs, it is usually an exaggerated fear. sometimes a bit of that at the beginning but as membership leads to salary levels and economies to rise to meet something resembling european average, then people have been quite often happy to go to their own economies. tony blair, a great european in

british politics with a speech earlier today, overconcerned about that. the enlargement, something we certainly favor provided the relative member state candidates meet the criteria for membership, not be able to break the rules or anything else, nobody is suggesting that. does the ukraine crisis change that? ukraine is generous, we have to deal with the whole issue of ukraine's ability to choose its future and what direction it wants to take and whether it should or should not be allowed to apply for membership and what happens with the european union, and the documents. ukraine is a case that needs to be that way with particular sensitivity. that depends on nature of the crises we have to address. i would like to think the partnership with the united states has made a decent job.

and the peace of handling the ukraine crisis. perhaps i am being a little naive that it may be behind us but nothing can be taken for granted. european councils to the ukraine crisis showed it can do its job and make a stand on very important issues and produce pretty much united view when there are different levels of economic integration and dependents, all the complex issues which were part of it. it has been a reminder that we do need to have an effective security policy. they are deeply involved in dealing with the iran issue, to have a negotiated end to the question of whether or not there will be nuclear military weapons which we do not wish.

it will be moving forward in that direction when international crises require it. european union on its own has not nor has anybody else been able to make much of an impact on things like syriac. there are other countries in that part of the world, in the middle east and beyond which clearly need a great deal of support from european member states but i think that will remain high priority for the government. not sure it will mean a sudden dramatic acceleration in this part of e.u. activity. it depends what will happen in coming months as we deal with institutional issues and a search for top jobs, and we continue to try to consolidate the economic recovery which we are only now beginning to witness and dealing with abdications in the pipeline that are already there from cabinet countries rather than rushing off seeking additional challenges except where there is no response, no choice but to

respond to a new crisis. >> just one point that to me was surprising but not that well known and a quick reaction to that but there seems to be quite strong kind of interaction, links from degrees of support between vladimir putin's moscow and the extreme euro skeptic parties. the head of the bulgarian attacker party launched its campaign from moscow, very designated statement on racist statements and others. to express admiration for vladimir putin and so on. there is something somewhat new. in the old days when the soviet

union was supporting the communist party in europe there was something similar. you see any kind of russian backed extremism? >> i think that is highly improbable because i could not think of it having any extensive appeal within the european union. you always have in an election campaign some highly erratic and predictable regrettable aspects but i really don't think that there is the space within the european union to take off in any significant or meaningful way. >> in terms of anything else you want to address that particularly is this issue that monetary policy almost by nature requires a market for dep, risk

free assets. >> in eastern europe. like progress in europe. and three years ago. and how far things have moved in that front. in terms of the banking union, we talked about three strands of it, the single supervisor, single resolution and some form of risk sharing. on the first of those, clearly there has been progress, they expected ecb is a single supervisor and that is well underway. on single resolution progress,

perhaps not as much or not as deep as some of us have been advocating. that is probably where there is least progress in terms of risk sharing. and the interest of the union and politically acceptable nationally becomes in conflict and one of those is precisely what you mention, the link between suffering and the banks. that link was very troublesome. during times of stress and in those times of stress have passed and the urgency despite the declaration in june of 2012 breaking that link there has been some progress, not sufficient progress if there's a recurrence of stress, that is a problem. in terms of what you mentioned,

sovereign paper is risk free or not, if you ask every sovereign they will tell you it is risk free but a supervisor like the ecb that looks at balance sheets and when you stress the balance sheet it is perfectly legitimate for them to make assumptions what if the papers under stress and not valued at less risk free? it is understandable the ecb would use that. when the dust settles everyone will realize enlargement has been in the interests of the new member states and the existing emphasis. take the case of poland and

ukraine. and after the fall of the berlin wall, we know where poland this and where ukraine is, vastly apart. the difference has been the european process of integration has generated democratic reform but also major economic reform. it has also been in the benefit of the core of europe, german supply chain runs through poland and the german competitiveness is enhanced by what poland has to offer. is it going to be more difficult for some of the country's, a long way to go for reforms? just by that nature it is more difficult but let's not forget the middle of the crisis, the euro zone expanded, they brought latvia in to the euro zone, lithuanians coming into the zone, looks like it would be

successful. i very much hope the momentum for integration, the euro zone itself or the greater european union will continue. >> some kind of mutual european debt eurobond in the next five years or not? >> to understand germany didn't do anything about euro belts. germany went out of the story of rescuing the german democracy -- they are not willing to do the same. i said to my french counterparts, and the discretion

-- germany in my view -- a large part of the totality could expect. and to improve the euro zone. and different allocation of fiscal targets. and different countries. and in the future, the question will be raised again and that that moment of time, and it would be more difficult for germany to say we definitely don't want even in better fiscal framework to be in this bond market but through the help of what we suggested the creation of the unified and liquid market in europe.

and only for one reason, going to berlin, i know about the germans who were extremely reluctant to save the complexity of the euro zone crisis have done their homework in an increasing manner much better than the fringe and at that point, the first operational proposal, the eurobond scheme came from germany, economic adviser bonus so that sometimes in the physical future come back to this table. >> and you will -- >> i just made a quick answer to your question. i did want to say a word about enlargements. not that i disagree with any of the words of the colleagues but i just think we shouldn't allow

ourselves to be gripped in the fearfulness of division or lack of vision of a small minority. the most glorious day in europe practically was 2004 when we enlarged to bring in the member states so we were rising above this trend we are always stuck in and we had a vision of europe and celebrated in europe and for young people i think who are not necessarily trapped as the older people are about immigration and job loss and so on so that it is a rationale and a vision for europe that makes sense so yes to the caution and care fullness and all that but if europe essentially has to be communicated as a vision of something to believe in, don't let us ever forget this goes to the heart of what you can believe in. >> on the macroeconomics, let me state some numbers.

i'm not sure of the u.k. one is. it is interesting that the u.s. a little bit above 6%, and the deficit and the balance of payments of $350 billion, 12 months, euro zone has an unemployment rate on average, there are few differences, of 13% and a surplus that has reached $320 billion. such a huge unemployment with such refuge account surplus. you would think there is some space for expansion. china who knows what the unemployment rate is? but the current account surplus has shrunk below $200 billion, the u.k. current-account deficit is $110 billion which is very large and the unemployment rate

if i am not mistaken is around 6.5 and japan has an account that is in balance and the unemployment rate of 6. the euro zone member particularly interesting. it is growing, not shrinking. and for the end, the last round, the question of what constructively can be done to resolve institutional issues and you can add whatever else but before we do that we take one or two more questions. this young gentleman here had asked, and we have time for three. we will see how quick they are. >> inside u.s. trade. in light of the recent e.u.

promise of elections there has been a return on how it is going to proceed to. you mention there are going to be some short-term complications. i was wondering if you could expand on that a little bit. >> short-term? costs? complication? >> complication. and there is also talk about a turnaround in market sentiment and lasting affect on the direction of negotiations. >> quickly and concise as possible. >> the question is in regards to legitimacy and the question of the debt. the debt is a false choice. the question is -- i apologize.

it is not conclusive on the debt and the growth. and to work and unfortunately at that time it doesn't add up. the question of turner's argument, we look at the quality of the debt. what are the metrics implications? 2002-2005, france and germany both break up the pact with germany, i will be brief, using the debt to finance the shortest reforms, the money to consume so the question is how do we reconcile the obligation to provide support for those

economies. we have frameworks. and yes, in london. 30% written off and the point of legitimacy, the possibility between -- 54. close to 43. the very kind of margin and in 2005 where we finish in 2005 it was bobby losing? no. to the question of the constitution. what did we have? we had a burden. you have to go with value. we are sitting there and not listen to and pretend. >> last question over there. yes. okay. yes. you have to be very quick.

in the back. >> from the peterson institute. people talk positively about eastern europe but there is a paradox because the participation rates in eastern europe were among the worst. slovakia was in the teens. it will be interesting to get perspective on what is happening here. enchanted with the european institution. >> the gentleman in a very end, very brief, thank you very much. please identify yourself. >> my name is michael burnside. i have a strange question involving the definition of the word job. in this country historically my grandfather and his father's times period job was six day is out of seven and ten hours a day. in my father's and my time, obviously five days, eight hours a day. as an american is interesting watching your. for a while, 35 hour work week

and sweden recently as part of civil service to do a six hour day. in stability and politics, important for young people to have worked. is there any hope of redefining the word job we throw around so easily? >> interesting question. let's move around, the last round, please address the last questions, we can't take any more questions unfortunately. but also give your view for answers to miriam's question and feel free to start -- catch your plane. what we will do star with a chance of leaving if you have to. >> i will try for reasons of time and greater expertise on some of these i will try to

answer all the questions. there was something addressed to me on that. i wanted to send a positive forward-looking message and i said in passing there may be some dips if you like. i meant it is going to take time for things to settle down in the european parliament, 30% of the euro skeptics, we may see some -- debate and discussion from them about the wisdom because a lot of these people are concerned about the globalization and so on. i didn't mean to suggest anything that would slow the momentum of anything significant way because it truly has to move forward. on the other things i would love to explore some job and work and so on and i won't. young people need to be doing something worthwhile that is going to give them a living wage

and i think as i see it that is disappointing to see those very low turnout rates in countries like slovakia in particular. it is if you question. miriam's question obviously in retrospect is unfortunate we have this ambiguity because it allows both sides as you say to claim it is my way and give their interpretations in the face of this ambiguity. i hope and believe it will be resolved in a mature way and the president's of the european council has been tasked to take it forward and make soundings, he hasn't been given a deadline but it is generally understood, and this opens ended up to drag us down. it needs to be addressed

seriously and allowed for that. and don't forget you shouldn't forget there are three jobs, three big jobs of the commission as well. in light of the election results, qualities are required, look at the individuals, three jobs, and see what is a mature way for read that is good for europe. that is the way i hope it will play out. the prime minister and that sort of thing aside but i think i have seen this happen in europe, yes, people articulate their views. at the end of the day there will be a maturity and a coming together in the interests of

europe going forward. >> thank you. you said something very important and i want to stress it one more time. a lot of what we are debating is way beyond europe, i think. really hard to manage globalization and international cooperation whether it is trades or climates. president obama to again initiative on power plant standards this week. i was with nick stern last week. all the evidence is the climate change threat is if anything more serious than people thought. it may not be an immediate threat for tomorrow but for the next 10, 20 years something very serious as to be done but this needs some kind of global cooperation and action. that is what you stressed. europe is a kind of experiment in post world war ii transnational corporation. if it fails it will have

tremendously negative impact everywhere else. we are debating europe today but also how to manage 21st century independence and that is important and stresses very forcefully in the beginning and i don't think the answers are at all easy because who said it? what was his name again? o'neill? all politics is local. tip o'neill? it is true. all politics is tremendously local and there are many problems that have to be addressed globally. isabel? what are your last words of wisdom and infringement? >> something that wasn't mentioned was the fact that in europe there is skepticism towards data. this played out in the

parliament. they are not really backing it at the moment of open discussion about it or the fact that it is being held in closed doors. also spoken about his skepticism towards negotiations. i think it will probably go ahead but there is concern in europe that europe will be a loser in that. at the moment they think is going to be win/win for the we u.s. and europe. in terms of eastern europe and the participation rate, in slovakia the participation rate was 13%. one of the reasons is you look at a lot of the countries in eastern europe they are not feeling the benefits of the european union. romania has one of the poorest members of the e.u.. that is going to have to change before they feel members of the e.u. and they remain in bulgaria

with a backlash as well and not been made to feel particularly welcome by britain so there are these factors, certain amount of disenchantment the e.u. at that level. in terms of the candidate, exciting, we all know angela merkel is the one in the driver's seat here and she found herself between a rock and a hard place because no matter what decision she makes it won't have a positive outcome. she hasn't -- she does back what will cause problems with david cameron who is trying to form a blocking minority who might be able to rally enough people to block that if that does happen and david cameron was blackmailing europe over the fact they might force of british exit from europe.

angela merkel certainly -- the chancellor who was in power when britain left europe and was one of the driving forces forcing disintegration of europe's the matter what happens will be very difficult. a very influential european parliament, one of the leaders of the greens said the president of the european commission the council better be aware because parliament will become a nuclear explosive site, and they can't expect any cooperation from the parliament so there will be a clash of institutions despite the fact that he is the president of the controversial trial to avoid that, probably inevitable. the constructive part, not a super candidate. i don't know. we talked about the possibility of treating -- my colleagues don't think it is necessarily going to happen but she might be one of the supercandidates who could override these discussions. maybe there is not the same

supercandidate status but could be a commission president. >> you were getting into new speculations here. >> i would say two things. democracy, one more, you have 51 persons, that makes the decision. and that is perfect legitimacy and has been a concern. and no one excessively emphasized the size, at this time, $4.8 million, and two years ago 6.4. said the exclusion of the extreme -- >> at the presidential?

>> yes. every voter who was willing to vote had the opportunity at this time. so don't overemphasize that situation. we face with a difficult situation -- came back in this city during six years, by using american corporations. so the question is difficult legislative process. i would say that it would not be more difficult with a new parliament with congress. jobs, working hours, quite comfortable and i work for the prime minister of measures measuring working time. before i had done that, what has

been done with 35 hours, in my political genes we think i suppose came out that this could be part of a far reaching new far reaching social contract. finally regarding most of the views, the parliament, and now to veto or accept the proposal, definitely doesn't nominate the president of the commission. to be approved by the parliament. i share the view of the ambassadors that the heads of government certainly want this issue to be unresolved relatively rapidly. the problem is they have gone

up. two things, first the head of the government will be the natural candidate for the job. and second, we want to keep the flexibility to nominate the president. these are contradictory and this was a contradiction which was taken last week saying tuesday, don't know exactly, saying i have been committed to support this issue in every meeting, i will support isabelle kumar. it is not a personal question. is an institutional question and a new and electoral body like the parliament -- a different

supercandidate, happy to see french people in a position to be candidates like that but i think the parliament has no reason to accept anyone outside the alert for oil -- they are excellent candidates, both of them to higher positions in national institutions and the best job for that is head of the commission. >> let me answer the debt question and touch on the jobs question. on the debt there are two separate issues, sustainability where it really depends on ability of the country to finance the debt and the markets to accept the debt.

that could be different levels. they can finance it. other countries get into trouble. sustainability is one issue. the impact on growth is another issue. if you look at a correlation of investment and the death, you see the high debt leads to lower investment and lower growth. if you look at correlation of consumption when the debt is high, consumers don't spend so spending -- it is very clear cut. we have done a lot of work done this a cross-country when the death is high it reduces investment which is a major problem right now in europe. investment levels are way below pre crisis and it weighs on gross so in that sense addressing the debt issue is

important -- >> when the debt was high interest rates would be high. now investment seems to be depressed, record low interest rates. >> when your balance sheet is encumbered if you have a very high death, even at low interest rates you may be concerned that you will not be able to have a profitable enterprise and therefore you will not be invested in benefiting as a consumer particularly when you look at the demographics in europe you may be concerned about your pension, your ability to consume later and consumption in the short run. there is a very clear relationship between growth and the debt if you break it down in different dimensions. on the job, i think what the questioner asked is very

important. the issue is not a standard drop that people define. the world is changing, they work for 15 hours or 30 hours or much longer. the issue is flexibility to do that and regulations that govern that and the problem is that flexibility in terms of cost and regulation when it comes to contracts are too rigid so you need to have that more flexible and of course it is more flexible to do that when the protection and cost of labor has been very high realizing that is difficult but you need that in order to create jobs. what you also need at the same time is social protection so protecting the work, not the

position. >> as director of the imf europe department on one on as your views on the supercandidate. peter. >> thank you. a couple of points. on the labour and jobs and what is a job as opposed to top jobs i will come to in a moment. obviously what europe needs is to have a properly flexible destination of labour market which allows for a whole lot of changes in the way people live their lives. even in my organization we see submissions signed by two people who are joined heads of department, they do two days of legal, two-1/2 days each at this job, some people take 80% of the pay and did four days rather than five days during the week. we are moving in the direction of trying to adapt and a flexible way to but different individuals want to do and how much of their life they wish to spend earning a job. it is right to be flexible and

also the key to diversity. if we are not going to be flexible in terms of this we will not attract all the talent we want when people have got other requirements in their lives. is fundamental, it is about regulation and also a culture of be more adaptable in terms of those of us who are the employers. second point i would make, you are probably going to make me answer the scotland question because i don't know who else is qualified. not sure i am either. how are we going to advance the selection of these key positions? we want to do this with maturity, taste, dignity, we want to get some answers on a consensual basis. that is for sure. let's not forget what the treaty says. the tree says it is for the council, heads of government between themselves if necessary voting by qualified majority to nominate a candidate who is voted upon by the european parliament. not the european parliament to

tell the council, it is the other way around. people who have come through whatever they want to be is fine, they are out there amongst the candidates who are presented but i didn't see the name of mr. shultz or anybody else that were voted upon by either lectors in any country other than their own countries where they were candidates for membership of the european parliament. lien need to be clear what the rules are, what the treaty says and the heads of government need to work among themselves. that is a sensible decision, to go where he talked to candidates and see what the options are come back with some proposals for heads of government to look at collectively and hopefully we will then end up with some answers. others have said it is not just one job the president of the commission, we also have the rest of the council and the high -- the vice president of the commission and all the other key jobs members of the commission and within coming months we will all be able to find ourselves in

a position where everybody is content with the outcomes. i will refrain from commenting on the names we mention other than to say there are undoubtedly some outstandingly good fringe candidates whose names could be in the ring but other candidates as well. i am not going to go farther than that. and then what about scotland independence? what would that mean? there will be a referendum in the united kingdom, in scotland only on the eighteenth of september which is not very far away when people who live in scotland, not english, not wealth, not northern irish, those people who live in scotland above the age of 16 will be invited to those areas where scotland will become independent, separated from the united kingdom, an arrangement which has been in touch for the last 300 years. this is a pretty big deal for my country. a lot of us are concerned about what the implications might be.

my government has facilitated holding referendum as a result of the election of a scottish nationalist majority in the local elections next -- last time around in 2011 the british government is not neutral on the issue, the british government, not only parties in government but opposition parties actually take the view that we would like the united kingdom to stay together and that is why you will hear scottish but also english and welsh and other members of parliament, political figures, business figures in the u.k. expressing an opinion whether they do or do not want scotland to become independent. of the do become independent, if there's a majority in favor on the eighteenth of september that is what will happen. we will all have to scurry around to make a lot of changes to an awful lot of things and the weighs the united kingdom discusses business. one of many questions that arises, currency, foreign investment, defense, nato commitments and all sorts of things that are out there about

pension rights, the sovereign debt of the united kingdom which would arrive as independents goblin but european membership, the first minister of scotland has said he expects there to be a seamless transition between scottish membership of the european union, that is not what leaders of the european union have said. of their political leaders in the european union have said that of scott leaves the united kingdom and wants to join the european union will have to take its place in the queue, it would have to apply like every other candidate country and will require unanimous consent of every single one of the 28 members of the e.u.. i would be surprised if all that got done and the process completed seamlessly in 18 months but we will see. is clear that there are some members states which are nervous about the idea of a member state fragmenting and a member state replying for membership of the european union but it is one of the number of quite complex

questions that would arise in the event there is a favor of independence. >> thank you very much, peter. let me just add a few words and then we will close. i think some of what we debated and started off with really has to do with global quality. the we cooperate in a global economy and the global world. ..

in my own experience let me just share one thing. how a person gets a particular job that is super national and of course the commission is a much, much more political as he said organization than the imf or the world bank is for example but to some degree they are bureaucracies trying to solve economic problems and manage global cooperation and so on. there has to be a certain amount of legitimacy in these bureaucracies which they often then have to be kind of personalized because in politics and in global civics and in media, things get very

personalized with the person, he or she who is heading these organizations. so i think to view the appointment purely as technocratic whether is the commission or heading the imf, world bank, wto is no longer appropriate for today's world. there have been figures such as zach who was a, not a political leader but head of the commission but at the same time had a direct message to citizens and accepted as such by citizens and there other am compels you can get from other institutions. many, many years ago, i don't want to go into current examples because it is kind of controversial, despite the problems with the vietnam war, mcnamara was head of the world

bank, but addressing global citizenship as head of the world bank and leaders of the imf have done similarly. so i think that element is important and somehow view global cooperation, as purely, purely a matter of national diplomacies, cooperating and working together i think underestimates the degree of need there is for a global or regional demos in a way. but of course we are very far from having achieved it yet. that so much for coming all of you and particularly thing the wonderful panel we've had. i hope you enjoyed this. i hope brookings is fulfilling its mission of bringing such discussions together and please give a round of applause to our panelists. [applause] i think there is some coffee for those who.

>> the u.s. senate gavels in just under half an hour. at 11 eastern lawmakers vote to whether to advance white house budget director sylvia burr well to be the next secretary of health and human services. watch live coverage of the senate 9:30 eastern on c-span2. yesterday the chair of the senate's veterans committee introduced a bill to address the needs of veterans seeking health care. the bill would take immediate action to reduce wait times and grant the secretary to remove incompetent executives and rapidly give the va the authority to hire new doctors and nurses. senator bernie sanders from vermont spoke on the floor about some of the provisions in the bill. >> it is l safe to say there is broad bipartisan agreement among all of us that every veteran in this i country who enters the va

health care system deserves high deserves thatnd care a in a timely manner. overall talking to veterans in vermont, inou fact throughout ts country, talking to the veterans service organizations, who represent their interests, and reading independent studies they all confirm that by and large once veterans get into the vath health caree system the system s in fact quite good. however, it has become clear and i think all of us are aware of what has happened in the last month, it has become clear that while quality is generally good there are too many veterans throughout this country waiting too long to access this care. in recent years, va has seen a huge increase in its patient load. in factlo in the last four years

two million new veterans have come into the system, many of them with very complicateder health care cases including t by, post-tramatic stress disorder and many of the needs that older veterans and older people generally have. despite this fact it is still absolutely unacceptable that some veterans are forced on to long waiting lists for care. and it is totally intolerable, it is reprehensible that any va employee could be manipulating data in phoenix or any place else to hide how long veterans have been on waiting lists to see doctors. this is an issue that must be dealt with and must be dealt with rapidly and strongly. madam president, these problems are real and they have to be

addressed. but they should not be an excuse to walk away from a system that serves six 1/2 million veterans every single year and 230,000 veterans every single day. this is a system that we must fix, not a system that we should ditch. we must focus on the underlying problems and work to transform the va. and i think in general, what our legislation does is three base being, works in three basic areas. number one, we greater authority to the secretary to fire incompetent senior officials. number two, we take very significant steps to shorten the wait times that many veterans are now experiencing and three,

we address the long-term health care needs of the va in terms of a shortage of staff, doctors, nurses, that n currently existsn various locations around the country. now let me just go through some of those issues right now.ra several weeks ago my republican colleague from florida requested a vote on legislation that would allow va secretaries to immediately remove senior executives due to poor performance. soex let us be clear. ie, strongly support the efforto make sure that we get rid of incompetent or worse senior executives at the va. there is no debate about that but here's what the debate is about. iab do not think that it is a gd idea to give the secretary of a

institution, of an agency that has some 300,000 employees the ability to simply fire without any due process. what i worry about, madam president, is that you can move toward a situation where the va health care system is politicized in a way that it should not be. let me give you an example.re a new presidentsi comes in witha new secretary. the new secretary says, whether it's a democratic or republican president, i want to get rid of 300 senior level appoint es, bring in 300 new people. four years later, another president comes in, different party, we get rid of those 300 people, bring in 300 more people. not think that provides the kind of stability that a, that the largest integrated healthat careed system in america needs r deserves. i worry about the politicalization. second of all, i worry about an

instance where a whistle-blower stands up critical or this or that aspect of the va. that person could be fired without due process. i worry there may be a situation where somebody is fired not because of bad performance or maybe they're a woman, somebody doesn't like a woman in thatn position, maybe they're gay,ey maybe they're black, maybe they're whatever, and that person does not have any ability to appeal that decision. i think that's wrong. i think that's bad policy on the other hand, what i do believe is that person should be taken out of his or her job immediately, but that person must have the right to have an expeditedve appeal. what our t legislation does, iss give the person a week to bring forth the appeal and gives the appropriate appeal body three weeks to make a decision. now you're dealing with people who are mds, phds,

high-level people whose professionalgh system on the li. i just don't think you can fire people willy-nilly without giving them a chance in an expedited manner to express their point of view. so that is one difference that i have with my colleague fromor florida on his proposal. now let me talk a little bit about the major concern that i have and that is how do we shorten wait times? how do we make certain that in those areas of the country where there are long waiting periods or where veterans may be geographically a long distance away from a facility, how do we make sure that they get timely care? the legislation that i have offered takes immediate action to provide timely access for care for our veterans. first, there is legislation

would stand eyes va's process for providing non-va care when the department is unable to provide care to the veterans withinn its stated goal. as dav, the disabled, disabled american veterans pointed out in a release today va must continue responsible for coordinating their care amongst various va and non-va providers this legislation accomplishes that goal by providing a framework for consistent decision making regarding non-va care. under this legislation, va would coordinate non-va care by taking into account wait times for care, the health of the veteran, the distance the veteran would be required to travel as well as the veteran's choice. this bill also addresses va systemwide health care provider shortages in terms of the waitries what we say in english

is a if there is a an unacceptae wait time or if a veteran is a long distance away from a provider, we are going to allow, and we must allow, that veteran to get health care through a private provider through a federally qualified community health center, through a department of defense military base, if that's available, to an indian health service, if that is available and that exists now in alaska and that might be expanded. so bottom line here h if there e waiting lists beyond what is reasonable, the veteranse of ths country should be able to get intohe non-va health care in a timely manner and this bill does that. but importantly, madam president, this bill also addresses a very significant issue that i think we can not ignore andre that is, that it appears to me that in many parts of this country we simply don't

have the doctors and nurses that we need when an influx of veterans are coming into the system. i was just talking to some very knowledgeable people today who are telling me about burnout, primary care physician psychiatrists are just seeing more and more patients and turnover rates are much too high. the last thing that we want to do is to see rapid turnover because people b are burnt out d have the time to do the quality work they want to do. let me quote, if i can, madam president, an article that appeared in the "new york times" ondd may 29th which addresses this issue. here is what it says and i quote, dr. phyllis hollenbeck, a primary care physician took a job at the veterans affairs medical center in jackson, mississippi, in 2008, expecting a fulfilling work and lighter patient load than she had had in private practice. what she found was quite different.ou 13-hour work days, fueled by large patient loads that kept

growing as colleagues quit and were not replaced. appalled by what she saw, dr. hollenbeck filed a whistle-blower complaint and changed jobs. aa subsequent investigation by the department of veterans affairs concluded last fall that indeed the jackson hospital did not have enough primary care doctors c resulting in news s handling far too many complex cases and in numerous complaints from veterans about the delayed care. quote, it was unethical to put us in that position, unquote, dr. hollenbeck said of the overstressed primary care unit in jackson. quote, your heart gets broken, end of quote. here we had a physician that wanted to do the right thing, wanted to spend appropriate amounts of time she needed with a patient. she was unable to do that. what we're hearing in many parts of this country, primary care physicians are just saying we can't doo it. too many people are coming in. so i think this is an issue that

has to be addressed. and our legislation does that. our legislation gives the va the ability to rapidly hire new doctors, nurse, and other health caree providers in areas with identified shortages. it also enables va's ability to recruit qualified health providers by enhancing scholarship and loan repayment opportunities. madam president, as i know you well know, because you're on the committee that deals with this issue, we have a crisis in this country in terms of the lack of primary care practitioners. this is a very serious problem. there are experts who tell us in fact that we need 50,000 new primary care physicians in the next 10 to 15 years. and this is a national problem. it is a problem within the va. and what this legislation proposes isop that the va work with the national health service

corps, debt forgiveness and scholarships to students at medical school so when they graduate they can get in the va and practice the quality medicine we need there. this bill also in addition to that addresses another issue that has been discussed a lot. i think there's widespread bipartisan support for that, support in the house as well, and that is the authorization of some 27 major medical facility leases. in many instances, these leasess would t improve access to care closer to home. it would increase the availability ohef specialty carr services ivin those locations. addition, these will allow va to decompress overutilized va facilities this is an important issue. i brief there's bipartisan support for it. that is in this legislation. furthermore, madam president, this bill would require the

president to create a commission to look at va health care access issues and recommend actions to bolster capacity.as and in last couple of days i heard a lot of good ideas out there about how we can deal with the issue but we need a high level commission of some of the most knowledgeable people in this country appointed by the president to report within 90 days some ideas about how the va can proceed. so, madam president, i want toan sponsors that we have. i look forward to working with w myit republican colleagues. we've got a problem. we have to address that problem, and i hope that we can do it in a bipartisan way. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. >> on this wednesday morning the u.s. senate will gavel in just over ten minutes. at 11 eastern today, lawmakers will vote to whether to advance

the white house budget director sylvia burr well to be the next secretary of health and human services. watch live coverage of the senate starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span2. yesterday senate republicans introduced their own legislation to address the va health care scandal. they include john mccain and leading republican on the committee, richard burr. they spoke to reporters about the legislation. we'll show you as much of this as we can until the senate gavels in this morning. >> good afternoon. i'm joined by my colleagues, senator burr of north carolina, senator coburn of oklahoma and my colleague from arizona, senator flake. we are all very aware of the ongoing scandal that has beset our treatment of the men and women who have served in the military. this, this scandal now has reached proportions where the american people are deeply

angered and are demanding that we make changes to fix this problem. there's even charges that in our home state of arizona, that 40 people died while waiting care. i don't know of an issue for -- more serious than than to the american people as how we treat those who are willing to go out and serve and sacrifice on behalf of their nation. and he especially want to thank my three colleagues including senator burr's whose role on the veterans affairs committee is vital and i would like to thank dr. coburn who understands and has been involved in these issues of the veterans administration for many, many years. and my colleague, senator flake, who has also taken a lead role in trying to address this terrible, almost tragedy, could be described as a tragedy that afflicted our care for our

veterans. and we're introducing the veterans choice act of 2014. the bill will give eligible veterans greater flexibility when choosing their medical care and increase accountability and transparency within the va to insure that it delivers quality care to our veterans in a timely fashion. the bill would accomplish these goals by the following. it would empower veterans who can't schedule an appointment within a reasonable time or live too far away from the va medical facility to exercise the choice, i emphasize the choice, of getting medical care from any doctor in a medicare or tricare program. i've always believed that veterans could choose and should choose and that's where i first proposed it in 2008 when i ran for the presidency of the united states. give these veterans a choice card, so they can take that choice card and present it to the health care provider.

prohibit scheduling or wait time metrics, goals that could be used as factors in determining performance awards for bonuses. require the secretary of the veterans administration to establish policy that outlines penalties and employee would be subjected to if he or she falsifies data, including civil penalties, suspension or termination. finally empower the secretary of the veterans administration to remove any top executive at the va if the secretary determines that his or her performance warrants removal. following removal, the secretary will certify and notify congress of the removal and the reason for the removal. this program will sunset after two years and require the inspector general to audit every two years. unlike senator sanders's bill, this legislation addresses the root causes of current va scandal and empowers veterans

with greater flexibility to get the quality medical care that he or she deserves. finally i would like to emphasize again, the inspector general just lack week reported that 1700 veterans who were awaiting primary care appointments in the va hospital in phoenix, arizona were not placed on the electronic waiting list. as the ig report stated, quote, most most importantly these veterans continue to be at risk of being forgotten or lost in phoenix hcs's convoluted scheduling process. as i mentioned earlier, the inspector general is now investigating 42 va facilities across the united states and the inspector general quote, identified instances of manipulation of va date that that distort the legitimacy of reported waiting times.

this legislation squarely the addresses the root causes of the tragic circumstances that bring us here today. senator burr? >> john, thank you very much. just a few things to add to it. john mentioned phoenix. when the phoenix investigation began, we had already had 12 reports from either the ig, the office of special counsel or medical investigations that pointed to exactly the same things that came out in the interim report. yet for those, since 2010, senior leadership at the va ignored attempting to make any changes, to make any reforms, to address any of the props that all of these investigations raised. that's why we're here. this bill is very targeted. it's focused specifically on fixing a short-term problem which is, how do we get veterans the care they deserve and allow the va leadership to make the

systemic changes that they need to make addressed by the inspector general. now some on capitol hill claimed this is all about money. let me remind you that since 2010, in the health care account alone, the v after has carried over $4.6 billion and it is estimated this year to carry over another $450 million. these are appropriated dollars that they have determined are not needed for the delivery of health care to our nation's veterans. as a matter of fact there has been no investigation that said there was a shortage of money. everyone of the investigations pointed to things like ghost clinics, double scheduling, veterans who were left off the rolls or request dates that were changed, so they met within a 14-day time frame, leaving us in an unknown situation as to how long many of these veterans waited for anything from primary care to oncology needs that

might have had medically. so what does this bill do? it's choice, it's transparency and it's change. it is not encompassing everything that congress would like to pass as it relates to va legislation but it addresses the urgent things needed right now and i'm proud to announce that as of this press conference the american legion amvets, and concerned veterans of america have publicly supported this bill and we hope there are going to be more veterans organizations before we mark this bill up. thank you. tom? >> i didn't ever serve in the military but like many of you i have the benefits of living in a great country because people put on that uniform and served for me. to me it would seem that if you're a combat veteran of this country you ought to be the first in line, not the last in

line. your access ought to be guaranteed, not for nominal care but for the best care. what we have right now is a system that isn't working. to give and live up to the commitments to equal the commitments, that our veterans have given us, this bill is a focused bill. it's about maintaining the va and making it better. but it's also about honoring the sacrifice of the veterans that served this country. when they have a need, to get it addressed, not have to wait, not to be a manipulated number but to have access to the care not only they need but they deserve more than any of us, any of us. so i'm proud of the work that we've done. there's lots to do. i would leave you with a little

tidbit of information. the average practitioner in the va hospital sees half the number of patients that the average practitioner outside of the va hospital sees. annals of family medicine published two years ago. so it is not about the number of doctors. it is about actually working and getting the job done. we have some great physicians in the va system. we have some great hospitals but we have problems. this bill is about addressing those problems. >> i'll be very brief. you can imagine being a veteran and in arizona, phoenix area, and waiting an average of 115 days -- >> that briefing from yesterday, see it in its entirety in the c-span video library. "the washington post" today is reporting that the white house has approached the cleveland clinic's chief executive, toby cross grove, veterans of the

vietnam warheading department of veterans affairs. no final decision has been made according to this person who spoke on condition of anonymity because the white house yet to formally, nominate mr. cosgrove. wee go live to the u.s. senate. the vinyl vote in the series will be whether to advance the nomination of white house budget director, silvia burwell to be the next secretary of health and human services. she would replace current secretary kathleen sebelius who will be leaving sometime this month. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

holy, holy, holy, lord god almighty, who is and who was and who is to come. through your wisdom all things are governed, and through your grace all things are sustained. give our senators the power to serve you. as they labor to do your will, provide them with the wisdom to discern your precepts and obey your commands. lord, help them to see that to know you is life, to serve you is freedom, and to praise you is joy. let them experience you in the

center of their being, finding delight in your presence. we pray in your majestic 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., june 4, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: 384, the hagueen sportsmen's act. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 2363, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting and for other purposes. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in morning business until 1:00. the republicans will control the first 30, the majority the final

30. at 11:00, the senate proceed to executive session to begin a series of up to four roll call votes. the first three will be confirmation on district court judges. the last vote will be a cloture vote on the nomination of sylvia burwell. there will be a senators-only briefing at 5:00 p.m. today. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd indicated to the majority leader i was going to have a unanimous consent request, and i'm going to propound that now. i ask unanimous consent that the environment and public works committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2414, the coal country protection act, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the righ right to obj.

mr. president, the rule will not become effective for a long time. the normal period of time to make comments when a rule is being promulgated is 60 days. this one is 120 days. the reason for that is members of my caucus want to weigh in on this to try to improve the suggested rule that has come from the e.p.a. so i am waiting to read this -- the proposed regulation myself, which i have not done. i have been briefed on it by my staff, and i will read this closely, as i'm sure ever senator will. i know the importance of this issue, and i'll be as cooperative as i feel is appropriate with the republican leader. but at this time i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, there is a bill, s. 2422, that is at

the desk and due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2422, a bill to improve the access of veterans to medical services from the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object, mr. president. to any further proceedings with regard to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed upon the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, a great military historiania histe name of john kingham once said -- excuse me -- i'm sure he said excuse me once in a while, too. here is what he said. this is a quote. "soldiers when committed to a task can't compromise. it's unrelenting devotion to the standards of duty and courage, absolute loyalty to others, not letting the task go until it's

been done." close quote. the integrity of the american soldier safeguards our democracy. their devotion to duty is what protects this nation. we've seen that up close in the last ten years or so, mr. president, with the war in iraq and the conflict in afghanistan. so i'm very thankful for members of the united states armed forces, that they do not compromise their honor. this past weekend our military refused to abandon its duty, fulfilling its duty to never ever leave a soldier behind. the release of army sergeant bow bergdahl. president obama as commander of chief acted honorably in helping an american soldier return home. sergeantberg disergeant bergdahs

an answer to his parents' prayers. it is my understanding that this -- the wate wait for the parents been difficult. you've seen his dad with his long flowing beard. he decided to grow that beard as long as his son was gone. his son is home now -- or almost home. unfortunately, though, mr. president, opponents of president obama have seized upon the release of an american prisoner of war -- that's what he was -- using a moment of celebration for our nation as a chance to play political games. the safe return of an american soldier should not be used for political points. when a man or woman puts on the uniform as a united states serviceman, they have america's uncompromising support. just a couple weeks ago, the

junior senator from new hampshire release add statement touting her diligence in calling upon the department of defense to, and i quote, "do all it can to find sergeant bow bergdahl and bring him home." in april, republican senators -- the republican leader and the junior senator from pennsylvania sponsored a resolution -- quote -- ""to express the sense of the senate that no member of the armed forces who was missing in action should be left behind." close quote. senator inhofe, the senior senator from oklahoma, even said that the united states must -- and i quote -- "must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family." close quote. president obama and his team did just that. they made every effort and brought this young man home. the request was made by the senator from new hampshire, the republican leader, the junior

senator from pennsylvania, and the senior senator from oklaho oklahoma. yet some of these senators are now denouncing the very same efforts that secured sergeant bergdahl's release. they're worried his release could be seen as a victory for president obama. as the president said, this is not a victory for him. it is a victory for the united states military and our country. let me put that notion to rest then. it is not a victory for president obama. it is a victory for our soldiers, their families, and our great country. no member of the armed forces should be left behind, and president obama saw to that. mr. president, there are questions regarding sergeant bergdahl's disappearance and whether or not military code was violated. these are issues that will be resolved by the united states army, not monday morning quarterbacks on capitol hill. let me say this for the sake of the argument:

let's assume that bergdahl did violate his sworn oath. what do we do? do we mete out justice to an american soldier? us, our country, as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said yesterday and the date before, if he's done something wrong, military justice will step in and take care of that violation, if in fact there was one. i don't know. but certainly that's a better approach than having the taliban do it. i will just the justice system of the united states a.m., american justice, every -- of the united states army, american justice, every time. whatever the results of the military's inquiries, it doesn't change the fact that one more american soldier is home safe. what was the alternative? would any american honestly prefer that a u.s. soldier remain in captivity until all the questions have been answered? of course not. in the united states, we rescues our soldiers first and ask

questions later. here's what rear admiral john kirby said. this is a quote that's so powerful. "when you're in the navy and you go overboard, it doesn't matter if you are pushed, fell, our jumped. ware goinwe are going to turn tp around and pick up." that's what he said. "when you're in the navy, and you go overboard, it doesn't matter if you are pushed, fell, our jed. we're going to turn the ship around and pick you up." i'm grateful for the many people who refused to forget about sergeant bergdahl and worked tirelessly to secure his release. america is glad he's home.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: president obama's new energy regulations would ship middle-class jobs overseas, splinter our manufacturing barricks and boost energy costs for struggling families. the regulations could also lead to a reduction of merely a half million jobs, according to an afl-cio union estimate. the union's leader characterized the job loss as -- quote -- "long-term and irreversible." end quote. he noted that the president's regulations would not achieve -- quote -- "any significant reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions." this is an afl-cio union leader.

in other words, lots of pain for minimal gain. the president's energy regulations would hurt the poor, the unemployed, seniors, and especially families in kentucky. kentucky coal sector employment has collapsed by 7,000 jobs since president obama took office. eastern kentucky saw just a 3% reduction in coal jobs in the first quarter of 2014 -- 3% reduction in the first quarter of this year. at least three additional kentuckians lose their paychecks indirectly for every mining job that's lost. as one coal leader noted, the administration's proposed regulations would only add to the economic challenges facing kentucky, especially in eastern kentucky, which is ground zero for what's happening in coal country. the coal country protection act

is cosponsored by several senators, including senator rand paul, and is supported by the kentucky coal association. it would require that simple but important benchmarks be met before the president's new rules could take effect. number one, the secretary of labor would have to certify that the regulations would not generate a loss of employment. number two, the director of the congressional budget office would have to certify that the regulations would not result in any loss in american gross domestic product. number three, the administrator of the energy information administration would have to certify that the regulations would not increase electricity rates. and, number four, the chair of the federal energy regulatory commission and the president of the north american electric reliability corporation would have to certify that electricity

delivery would remain reliable. so the coal country protection act is just common sense. now the majority leader moments ago blocked consideration of this measure. unless we take this up, debate it and pass it, the president's rules will cause job loss, utility rate hikes and potentially brownouts. the president's regulation will lower -- the president's regulations will actually increase energy prices and create job loss. opponents of this bill would be supporting job loss in kentucky. our economy being hurt, and seniors' energy bills spiking for almost zero -- almost zero -- meaningful global carbon reduction. so the majority leader and the democrats in this body need to

listen. and even if they won't, kentuckians should know i'll keep fighting for them. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to discuss e.p.a.'s joint proposed rule redefining waters of the united states.

claims to the contrary not withstanding, e.p.a. has once again thrown down the gauntlet with its massive expansion of federal jurisdiction. this new rule in essence declare that every body of water is within federal regulatory jurisdiction. by conjuring up even the most remote connection to and a navie body of water, e.p.a. is now claiming that they can regulate ponds, ditches, and even low-lying areas that actually are dry during most of the year. e.p.a. thinks its jurisdiction, if there's -- it thinks it has jurisdiction if there's just a chance that a speck of dirt can travel through a stream, a pond, or even a field to traditional navigable water. and that, mr. president, is

clearly not what congress intended. but the e.p.a., the army corps of engineers, and even the usda are touting that they listen to agriculture, and that farmers and ranchers' concerns were in fact reflected in this proposal. but if this 370-page rule actually provides certainty and maintains exemptions for farmers as e.p.a. claims, then why are most of the farm groups opposed to it? we've seen e.p.a. become better and better at messaging to farmers, but unfortunately the actual language of the regulations, their very aggressive approach really hasn't changed a bit. while e.p.a. has shown a willingness to meet and to listen, the reality is that the words on paper really are what

matters. when administrator mccarthy came before an appropriations subcommittee a few weeks ago, i pushed her on this issue. not surprisingly, she told me that they're really trying to get this right and listen to agriculture's concerns across the country. but as it stands right now, folks in farm country are justifiably alarmed. now, e.p.a. will point to a few exclusions in the rule, but if you look closely these exemptions are so very narrowly crafted that very few waters actually would escape e.p.a.'s regulatory grasp and overreach. for example, under the proposed rule, waters that are perennial, intermittent or ephemeral can be

subject to e.p.a. regulation. that's right. e.p.a. is trying to regulate bodies of water that only have water in them twhe's raining -- only have water in them when it's raining. that is only one of the examples to make it clear that e.p.a. is just trying to push the envelope, push it as far as they can. in its so-called fact sheet on the benefits of the rule for agriculture, e.p.a. touts that exemptions are in fact preserved. not only that, but according to the facts, e.p.a. will now exempt 56 conservation practices from permitting requirements. it says that this will provide certainty. it will provide predictability. now, that sounds good as messaging until you actually examine the claims. these exemptions only apply to dredge and fill permitting. all other clean water act

permitting requirements do not have exemptions for agriculture. so whether a permit is required for other provisions of the act is simply a function of whether the related waters are federal waters or not. thus, because e.p.a. vast lip expanded the -- vastly expanded the definition of federal waters, farmers are going to get a rude awakening when they are told they need a 402 permit before applying pesticides, or when they realize this rule may require them to have a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan in place. or when they realize their farm pond is not exempt simply because they allow livestock to drink from it. imagine the dismay of farmers when they realize the much touted exemptions are

essentially meaningless and they are subject to fines of tens of thousands of dollars per day. nonetheless, the obama administration continues to tout this list of 56 conservation practices that they are proposing to exempt if farmers should fall silent in gratitude. it's the classic smoke and mirrors approach that has led to tremendous mistrust. they say one thing while putting policies in place that dictate something entirely different. consider this: even these narrow conservation exemptions are wrapped in fine print and red tape. you see, e.p.a. also says that in order to be exempt, a conservation practice must specifically comply with usda standards. again, sounds reasonable except that these standards which were

developed for voluntary conservation programs were never intended to be the only means of avoiding the regulatory hammer. these are gold-plated standards. they are also very prescriptive. they may be fine for voluntary programs that come with compensation for compliance. it's not fine if farmers must follow them or face huge fines. that's not voluntary. there's nothing voluntary about that. can these farmers be sued because they didn't follow supposedly voluntary usda standards? can e.p.a. take action against these farm families? and who will enforce compliance with those conservation practices? will it be the usda or will it be the e.p.a.? farmers generally trust usda's

voluntary approach to conservation, but what happens to that trust if usda is suddenly thrust into the business of enforcing e.p.a. regulations on the farm? conversely, is e.p.a. going to hold any sway over usda's voluntary conservation standards? since they're planning to use those standards to regulate farms, this is a great concern. let me mention one additional cause for concern. these supposedly exempt practices are not even in the proposed rule. they're in a separate document from the rule, and that document can change on the whim of the e.p.a., without warning and with no opportunity whatsoever for public comment. so ranchers doing a practice consistent with the list may get

the rug pulled out from under them. now, e.p.a. claims that this rule will provide certainty. it will provide predictability, they say. in one respect, they're right. as a constituent of mine from ogalala rightly put it -- quote -- "the only clarity the proposed rule provides is to put me on notice that everything is a water of the u.s. and that i need a permit to do anything." unquote. so it appears that in an effort to provide clarity, e.p.a. has very much done the opposite. and i've just scratched the surface here today, but e.p.a. still has an opportunity to fix it. while the tendency of this administration has been to overregulate from day one, there's still an opportunity to pull back the rule and admit that it went too far. i had high hopes when

administrator mccarthy took the reins and expressed the desire to build trust with the ag community. in fact, she called it a priority. the rule, though, delivers the opposite message. if administrator mccarthy is in fact serious about having a relationship with the people i represent -- ag producers -- it would send such a powerful signal to say hold on, let's withdraw the rule. let's not follow this misguided direction. call a time-out and people would see that and say i'm going to listen. people would receive that so positively. this would certainly get the attention of the ag community and really begin to build bridges instead of outlining rhetorical wishes. the window of opportunity is open, and i hope the

administrator seizes it by withdrawing the rule. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i want to talk a little bit about health care this morning. i know that the majority leader has suggested in past weeks that all of these contacts and concerns that i get from missourians are just made up, though he didn't -- to be truthful -- didn't target missourians and say only missourians were making these stories up. he just said everybody was making these stories up. that's clearly not true. and the law regarding health care, the law that is applied every day with great consistency, continues to be, mr. president, the law of unintended consequences, the law that so often is impacted by what we think we're doing in the

congress only to find out that the consequences of those actions were well beyond the discussion that the congress was having. certainly if we had that debate again today, the debate that you and i saw in 2009 and early 2010, the congress would be better prepared for that debate, the country would be better prepared for that debate, people would understand what's at stake in a better way. but what i see every day, again, are things that people didn't anticipate that would happen. talk about a letter we got from jack in kansas city, missouri. he said, "i'm a retired hospital chief executive officer and glad to be retired because of obamacare." that's his quote. "i'm a retired hospital c.e.o. and glad to be retired because of obamacare." he points out in an absolutely correct way that in most communities in missouri, the hospital, particularly in our small and mid-sized communities, is a real source of pride, a

place of healing, a major employer, and of course the potential end result of what's happening now with the changes we made and how hospitals are treated, particularly hospitals in rural areas, hospitals in underserved inner city areas. the programs that were in place are basically going away. and why did they go away? because the president assumed, and the members of congress, i'm sure, that voted for this piece of legislation sphaoufpld -- assumed that everybody would be covered. everybody would have insurance, so we didn't need to have special programs for people that dealt with people who didn't have insurance, hospitals who dealt with people who didn't have insurance. we didn't need special programs for underserved areas, and clearly that is not the case. if we look back at that debate, many people were saying this will not work out the way the well-intended proponents of this law think it will work out. we're