risk. that doesn't come from john mccain or lindsey graham. talk to any military leader in uniform and they will tell you that sequestration is killing them. planes can't fly, people -- parts of the military can't train and equip. we have two of our combat brigade teams that are fully ready to fight. look at the world in 2011 when we started this idiotic sequestration and look at the world today. my colleague serves both on the armed services committee and spent about 33 years as a member of the united states military, a regular visitor to kabul and baghdad. i think that he understands that what we are doing with sequestration and voting against this amendment in my view is putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in danger. have no doubt about it. and there will be further

attacks in europe. there will be further attacks in the united states of america, and we won't be ready. and the responsibility for it will be those who vote no on this amendment. i'd ask my colleague. a senator: thank you. here's the issue. to those who are a slave to the sequestration caps, to those who believe that sequestration in this budget practice were involved is going to save the country, boy, i couldn't disagree with you more. mr. graham: we haven't moved the debt needle at all. discretionary spending is not the reason we're in debt. we're spending at a 2008 level. so these blind across-the-board cuts limited to discretionary spending a lot of programs are not even subject to sequestration is not moving the debt needle. it is destroying the ability to defend this country.

so the theory we're advocating here today is that there's an emergency in the united states military that needs to be addressed and we should be able to add money to the united states military, the department of defense based on an emergency that's real and not be limited by caps that are insane. so here's the issue. is there an emergency? terms of readiness? is there an emergency in terms of operation and maintenance? are we putting the ability to modernize our force at risk in an emergency situation because we don't have enough money to fight the wars we're in and modernize the force for the wars to come. if you don't believe us, here's would the commandant of the marine corps said about the courant state of readiness. our aviation units are currently unable to meet our training mission requirements primarily due to ready basic aircraft

shortfalls. i can tell you in the marine corps today, 70% of the f18's have a problem meeting combat status. i can tell you today that the army is stretched unlike any time i've ever seen. i can tell you today that the navy is robbing peter to pay paul to keep the ships on the ocean and with the numbers we have in terms of defense spending, they're having to forego modernization to deal with the readies in, to deal with the ability to fight the war. i can tell you that the commandant of the marine corps is going to take six b-22's out of spain that are used to rescue consulates and embassies that come under attack in africa because we need those planes to train pilots, and if we don't bring those planes back, we're not going to have an air worthy b-22 force at a time we need it. you're creating a hole in a

vacuum in our ability to protect our diplomats and u.s. citizens in africa. could i just add one thing. mr. mccain: it was at the hearing when general milley, the chief of staff of the united states army test identified the army risks not having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our national leadership and most importantly, risks incurring significantly increased u.s. casualties. i say to my colleagues that are going to vote against this, you are taking on a heavy burden of responsibility of incurring significantly increased u.s. casualties in case of an emergency. the military is not ready. we are a hundred billion dollars less than we were in t 2011 when sequestration began and the world has changed dramatically. i can't tell you my disappointment to hear that the chairman of the appropriations committee, i don't know if my

colleague knows, said that he's going to vote against it using some rationale that they're increasing by some $7 billion. that's insane. that is not only insane, it's irresponsible and most importantly, it's out of touch. i say to my colleagues, to the chairman of the subcommittee take you are out of touch with what's going on in the world in the united states military. you better get in touch. mr. graham: i would just add that anybody who doesn't believe that there's an an emergency in the united states military is not listening to the united states military and you have not been following the consequences of what we've done over the last five, six years in terms of cuts to the military. over the last seven or eight years, we've cut $1 trillion out of the united states military. we're on track to have the smallest army since 1940, the smallest navy since 1915, the smallest air force in modern times. we're on track to spend half of

what we normally spend in time of war. normally we spend about 4.5% g.d.p. to defend this nation. we're on track to spend 2.3% of g.d.p. this in my view is an emergency. i want you to go back home and explain to those who are busting to fight this war, who can't fly equipment because it's too dangerous, who are cannibalizing planes to keep some planes in the air, that are stretched so thin that it's creating high risk. here's what the general of the army said. the chief of staff of the army. characterize us -- i characterize us at this current state at high military risk. so this is the chief of staff of the army telling you, all of us, that the army is in a high state of risk because of budget cuts. this $18 billion will restore money that has been taken out,

that will have a beneficial effect now and is absolutely essential. it will give 15,000 more people in the army, and if you're in the army, you would like to have some more colleagues because you've been going back and forth, back and forth. so we need more people in the army, not less. 3,000 more marines. if anybody has born the burden of this war, it's the united states marine corps. here's what i say. let's hire more marines. the whole theory of this amendment is that we've let this deteriorate to the point that we have an emergency situation where we're putting our men and women's lives at risk because they don't have the equipment they need, the training opportunities they deserve to fight the war that we can't afford to lose, and you're going to vote no because you're worried about budget caps. oh, we love the military. everybody loves the military.

well, your love doesn't help them. your love doesn't buy a damn thing. if you love these men and women, you will adequately fund their needs. if you care about them and their families, you will adjust the budget so they can fight a war on our behalf. we're up here arguing about everything, the state of politics in america makes me sick. looks like one thing we could agree on, libertarians, vegetarian, republicans and democrats that those who are fighting this war deserve better than we're giving them. so i want to tell you when you come and vote against this amendment because you're worried about the budget caps, the budget committee is not going to fight this war. to my friends at heritage actions, i agree with you a lot. you say this is a bad vote. nobody at heritage action is going to go over to afghanistan, iraq or syria or libya to protect this country. you talk about a head in the sand congress, you talk about people who are not listening, that are so worried about

special interest groups and concepts that have absolutely no basis in reality, if you fully implement sequestration, all you've done is gut the military and some non-defense programs that really matter to us. you haven't changed the debt at all. so don't go around telling people you're getting us to a balanced budget. you're not. the money is in entitlementses and we're not doing a damn thing about it. ryan murray added some money and i want to thank them but it wasn't enough. i want to thank the appropriators for adding $7 billion but it's not nearly enough. the $18 billion that is in this amendment goes to buy airplanes, 14f-18's, five if-35 -- f-35's. $200 million to help the israelis with their missile defense program. what this buys is more people, more equipment, more training opportunities at a time that we need all of the above. it breaks the cap because we're

in an emergency situation. these caps are strangling our ability to defend this nation. i hate what we've done to the military. this is a small step forward. this is not nearly what we need but this $18 billion will provide some needed relief to the people who have been fighting this war for 15 years. so i hope and pray that you'll start listening to those that we've put in charge of our military and respond to their needs, and this is a small step in the right direction. and if we say no to this amendment, god help us all. and you own it. you own the state of high risk. if you vote no, then as far as i'm concerned, you better never say i love the military anymore because if you really love them, you would do something about it. mr. mccain: i also point out to my colleague as a sign of priorities around this place, yesterday we had a vote on medical research on nearly a

billion dollars that had nothing to do with the military but was a place where the willy sutton syndrome took place and there was a 5% increase. the appropriators could increase by 5% medical research that has nothing to do with the military but they won't add money that the military can use to defend this nation. there is no greater example of the priorities around this place. i see my colleagues are waiting. i want to point out what voting no means. voting no means would be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for our troops doesn't keep pace with inflation or private sector averages. this is -- for the fourth year in a row, the military will receive less of a pay race than the rate of inflation. you vote no, that's what you're doing. you vote no, it would be a vote in favor of cutting more soldiers, more marines at a time when the operational

requirements for our nation's land forces from the middle east to africa to europe and asia are growing. every time you turn around, you'll see that there are more troops deployed in more places whether it be iraq, syria, lib libya, or european initiative where we're going to -- european reassurance initiative. every time you turn around, there's more deployment, more deployments in the far east, asia pacific region. every time you turn around, there's more obligations albeit incrementally and yet we're going to cut the funding while we increase the commitments that we had. so you'd be voting in favor of cutting more soldiers and marines at a time when the operational requirements of our nation's land forces are growing. voting no, voting no would be a vote in favor of continuing to shrink the number of aircraft that are available to the air force, navy and marine corps at a time when they're already too

small to perform their current missions and are being forced to cannibalize. we have people who are having to go to the bone yard in tucson, arizona, and take parts from planes that haven't been operational for years. that's how bad the system has become thanks to sequestration. our maintainers, these incredible enlisted people are working 16 to 18 hours a day trying to keep these planes in the air. an air force squadron came back, of the 20 airplanes six were flyable. there was a piece on fox news the other day about in biew frtd, south -- beauford, south carolina, the f-18 squadron where they're having to have a plane in the hanger where they can take -- hangar where they can take parts from to keep planes flying. they're exhausted these marines. by the way, don't think they're going to stay in when they're subjected to this kind of work environment. voting no would be a favor to

shrink the number of aircraft. they're too small and their current missions are being forced, as i said, to cannibalize their own fleets. voting no would be to give a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set the timeline for our mission in afghanistan instead of giving our troops and our afghan partners a fighting chance to victory. voting no is in favor of continuing to ask our men and women in uniform to perform more and more traffics with inadequate readiness, inadequate equipment, inadequate numbers of people, and unacceptable levels of risk to their missions and themselves. it's unfair to them. it's wrong. it's wrong. for the sake of the men and women in our military who are putting their lives on the line as we speak to defend this nation, i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will make the right choice. for five years, five years we've let politics, not strategy, determine what sources --

resources we give our military service members. our military commanders have warned us that we risk sending young americans into a conflict for which they are not prepared. i know the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the mistakes of the past five years have created this danger. this is the reality. this is a reality of our soldiers, airmen and marines are facing. so i say, it doesn't have to be this way. it does have to be this way, and if you vote "no," as my colleague from south carolina said, if you vote "no," just don't say you're in favor of the military, okay? don't be that hypocritical. just say, you continue to put the lives of these men and women who are serving in the military, in the words of the chief of staff of the united states army in greater danger. that's your responsibility. but just don't say -- don't go

home and say how much you appreciate the men and women in the military, because when you vote "no," you are depriving them the ability to defend this nation and themselves. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of pn 1039, the nomination of mark mcwaters for the board of directors at export-import bank and that the senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate, that it confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, and that the president

be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. heitcamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: we'd like to engage in just a discussion of what this means to american workers, to american exports, and american manufacturing. i think we've worked very, very hard over the last several months to try and move this nomination forward. we fought this fight. many appearing with me today fought this fight, whether it was on t.p.a. or whether it was just sumly trying to get -- simply trying to get reauthorization of the ex-im bank advanced and furred. we -- advanced and furthered. we lost this fight. and again we have an inability

to move this nomination forward, so we want to talk about this today. i'm going to yield to several of my colleagues here for their short comments, and we'll start with senator schumer, who i think he has a commitment with the judiciary committee. mr. schumer: thank you. i want to thank my dear friend, the senator from north dakota, for her leadership on this issue as well as our two great senators from the state of washington, maria cantwell, and patty murray. and i support my colleague from north dakota and echo her comments. we should have a full complement of board members at the ex-im bank. and at the very least they must have enough to reach a quorum and conduct its business. i also want to thank my three colleagues for their tireless efforts to get the ex-im bank reauthorized last year. the legislation to reauthorize was carried by the senator from north dakota as well as senators cantwell and murray, after republican obstruction caused it

to lapse for the first time in its 80-year here. what a shame it was that it lapsed. the ex-im bank is one of the key tools in our toolbox for supporting and growing manufacturing jobs across the country. we talk about increasing good-paying manufacturing jobs. both sides of the aisle do that regularly, and then when it comes to supporting the ex-im bank, one of the best tools we have, they obstruct it, they vote "no," and now they have found a clever way to stop it from working, because it won't have a quorum. the ex-im bank provides necessary financing for come to stuck manufacturers to compete with foreign companies that are heavily subsidized or owned entirely by their governments, sum plu to have access to their own -- simply to have access to their own domestic bank. it is like having america unilaterally disarm in the global competition for exports and good-paying manufacturing

jobs here at home. but there's a small band of folks, ideologues, so ideologically opposed to the bank, they'll do anything to see that it will come to a screeching halt, they will do everything trick in the book to do it and that's what they're doing noe now. they're hamstringing the bank by denying it the funds it needs to omplet i know i have a whole lot of things to say here. i am going to ask unanimous consent, because i see my colleagues waiting to put the thing in the record, to put my remarks in the record. but i just want to say, we're losing $50 million a day in exports, some of those comes from my home state of new york. we have not only g.e., which makes turbines, a large percentage of which are exported and are now they're losing business to se seimens and other foreign companies. we have other companies that

depend more on the ex-im bank because it gives them the ability to go find markets overseas. so i don't want to hear my colleagues on the other sued of the aisle talking about how they care about jobs, how they care about building america, and building our exports as long as they continue to play this trick and hamstring the ex-im bank from functioning. i ask unanimous consent my entire statement be put in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i'm here today to support the strong statement of the senator from north dakota and in strong support of a fully functioning export-import bank because it creates american jobs and helps our businesses, large and small, and in fact reduces our national debt. but right now political posturing has handicapped the ex-im bank, one of our country's most reliable tools to increase america's economic competitiveness in our global economy.

in nigh home state of washington -- in my home state of washington, there are nearly 100 businesses, the majority of them small- or medium-sized who used the bank's services last year to help sell their products overseas. we're talking about everything from apples to airplane parts, beer, wine, software, medical training supplies, and beyond. the reality is, people in other countries want american-made products, and that's a great thing because these businesses support tens of thousands of jobs in our country and keep our economy moving. mr. president, the export-import bank is the right kind ever investment because it expands american businesses' access to emerging foreign markets that create jobs right here at home. and you know what it costs the taxpayers? not a single penny. in fact, the ex-im bank reduces

our national debt. so here's the bottom line: the bank creates jobs, it strengthens our businesses, it helps our economy grow from the middle out -- not just the top down. so it's time for my colleagues to put ideology aside. allow this proven program to operate at its full capacity, to allow a vote that we were denied today to get the ex-im board operating again, because it's critical that the bank continues to receive the strong bipartisan support we have seen in the past as we work to build on its success. thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i join my colleagues this morning on the senate floor in an effort to wake up the united states senate to the fact that without action by this body -- and specifically the banking

committee -- members are literally supporting shipping jobs overseas. i believe in a manufacturing economy. i believe in a manufacturing economy because so many people in the state of washington work in manufacturing and because aerospace is an industry in which the united states is still a world leader. but yet we are, by not filling the board of a credit agency, putting it out of business in making sure that it can ensue credit for manufactured u.s. products to be sold in overseas markets. why is manufacturing so important? manufacturing is important because it pays a decent wage. it allows american workers to go from working-class to middle-class. it helps secure jobs in our economy that are stable for families to send their kids to school, to help people move up into a better quality of life. and so i'm competitive in general. i don't want to lose a

manufacturing base. but i also don't want to lose the middle-class. and what's happened as we have tried to thwart here with conservative views of the heritage foundation, the export-import bank, is u.s. manufacturers have decided to put their manufacturing overseas. think about it. how long is a company or a business going to put up with the fact that they don't have a credit agency here in the united states? now, can a business that is a big manufacturer get its own credit? sure, it can. sure, they can go and get credit. but if you are asking to sell on a global market -- i will a give you an example of a manufacturinmanufacturerin our h sells manufactured grain silos to many companies in africa and asia and aacross the world. so do you think they're going to finance every single deal they do? no, because they have to put money into their manufacturing facility so they can stay

competitive and have the best silos being produced. so if they limited their business to only deals that they could finance, they'd have very limited business. think about it. who do we make that requirement of? it's the customer who is buying that needs to get credit. it's the customer that is out there that wants to purchase what is a great u.s. product that is having frufnlt and -- having trouble. and think about t you are a small african country trying to turn your economy into agriculture, or a small asian country trying to upgrade your quality of life. it could be just as prime minister modi said yesterday, it could be that they want to diversify their energy portfolio. well, guess what 1234 we're holding that up and not allowing all those countries to buy u.s. products simply because we retbiews to have a working board at the export credit agency. and how ludicrous is that?

it's so ludicrous because what happens is a u.s. manufacturer -- for example, say, aerospace manufacturer like boeing, they would love to buy g.e. engines and make sure that, say, a south american country purchases boeing and g.e. engines. well, they could go and purchase rolls royce engines and the european credit agency can fund the deal. now what's happened? g.e. has lost out on dealings. do you think all these u.s. manufacturers are going to stay in the united states? no, they're going to go where credit financing exists. so by not moving feud on a full-so by not moving forward on a full-functioning credit agencies, all you're doing to helping to ship jobs overseas. we make up great products in the united states. we are competitive. our workforce is skilled. i'll be the first to say we need to skill it more, and i'm all

for educating and skilling our workforce with every resource our country has, because that innovation is our competitive advantage. but, if we mawk great products but then we hamstring the financing of those great products because developing countries don't have the same banking and financial stools that we have in the united states, you're basically saying we're not going to sell product. so i am a big proponent of winning in the international marketplace. i am a big proponent of saying the middle class is growing around the global and one of the united states' biggest economic opportunities is to sell product outside the united states, as that rise in the middle class means they can purchase more u.s. products. well, they can't if we don't have a credit agency that finances it. so why are we down here this morning as it relates to, you know, the defense bill that's being discussed? well, her we're here because the are more than 10 million deals

and transactions in the export-import pipeline -- i'm sorry, $10 billion of deals that are in the export-import bank. yesterday prime minister modi was here. the indian government has announced that westinghouse could finalize contract cz nuclear power corporations to india. those deals won't get done if you don't have an export credit agency to do those deals. and the u.s. is considering right now in the senate the national defense authorization act and last month the aerospace industry association and national defense association wrote letters to our leadership here in the senate urging them to make sure that we had a functioning bank. they pointed out that without a quorum, multimillion-dollar exports of aircraft, satellite, other things also won't get done. so we just have this little argument on the senate floor about how we're going to pay for things in the defense bill and

whether we're going to have balance with our other domestic spending. by not supporting and moving forward on the export credit agency, you are also making defense in the united states more expensive. you are making our security more expensive. because you're not allowing that same technology that we have decided meets our export controls but we are willing because these are partners of ours to sell that defense, you're mawing that difficult. so i would like to enter into the record this letter from the aerospace industry and national defense industry basically saying that you are making it more expensive for us to do business as a country in defense because you also won't allow for the export of this product. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. chair. i think, mr. president, i'm here with my colleague from north dakota because we feel passionately about the issue. we're frustrated with the shenanigans that has gone on with the export credit agency.

i say shenanigans because for a long time people said oh, well, there's not the votes. we can't get this done. well, when you lifted the veil behind some very conservative threatening tactics, there were, the majority in both the united states senate and the house of representatives support for this export credit agency. now because one committee wants to bottle up a nominee, if you don't like the nominee, come up with a different name. come up with two names. who cares. what really is happening is those on the other side of the aisle are enabling one individual to thwart the biggest manufacturing opportunity our country has to secure manufacturing jobs in the united states of america. ms. cantwell: let's build great products and have a credit agency that can finance

developing nations. why on earth are we continuing this shenanigan, all so somebody can say to the heritage foundation i got you one more trophy for your shelf. that is not what america is about. america is about competing and succeeding and growing economic opportunity. i want to thank my colleague from north dakota for her leadership on the banking committee and trying to move this effort fort and all my colleagues who care about manufacturing who are willing to come to the floor and make this point. time is running out for this session before the summer recess to get this done. it is time to get it done. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: thank you, mr. president. thanks to my colleague from washington. you know, the level of frustration that we have over this issue is really unparalleled. you know, we hear platitudes here in the united states senate. they usually start with "we

believe in the will of the people." let's do the will of the people. well, guess what? we had this debate. we had the debate about whether we should have an entity called the export import bank -- export-import bank. we had that debate. we shut down the bank for the first time in 60 years. we shut down the bank stopping exports from the united states of america, costing jobs in the united states of america. we won that fight, and we didn't win it by a little. we didn't win it by just a margin. we won super majorities, super majorities in the senate and super majorities in the house. when we were told the house would never pass a stand alone bill, they passioned a -- passed a standalone bill by 70%, 70% of the vote. doesn't that tell you that the people of this country should have a vote through their elected representatives? and today you know what's stopping the will of that vote? the will of the people to have

this entity beyond all the arguments for why this entity is critically important? one person. one person, for whatever reason. this is why people have lost faith with their government. this is why people don't believe that we can get anything done here anymore. because even though we fight the fight, even though we win the fight, we don't win the fight because we need a quorum at the bank to do any deal over ten million. we have a nominee and you might say well, it might be a raving liberal, right, this nominee? no, it's the republican nominee that represented and worked with and worked for one of the most conservative members, in fact, an anti-export-import bank of the house of representatives. that's our nominee. there's nothing wrong with this nominee. it's not our side who's debating the legitimacy of a republican nominee. it's not our side.

so how do we really believe in manufacturing and believe in the american dream and believe that we can be part of a global economy when 95% of all potential consumers in the united states of america or in the world, guess what? they don't live here. and if we're going to be competitive, if we're going to be participating in that global economy which we must, then we must be competitive. we cannot be competitive without an export credit agency. it's just that simple. and we're not going to be competitive. and so don't say you're for trade or manufacturing when you're not willing to take a risk because some ideologue on the other side has decided that that's a black mark. you know, earlier senator mccain made a passioned plea. and senator graham talked about heritage. who's running this place. when the heritage society can stop deliberation by simply

putting a check mark next to a piece of legislation and when we have this being once again held up in the back rooms of the united states senate, not openly but in the back rooms, who's running the place? and who really believes in trade? who really believes in manufacturing? who really believes in the middle class? i'll tell you, my passion on this doesn't just come because i think it is a horrible, horrible trajectory for the future, for the future of our american economy. my passion on this comes when i hear stories, and these are real, they are not pretend stories, when i hear stories that we're going to take our manufacturing out of this country and we're going to lose jobs and we're going to lose those jobs very quickly. in fact, when we shut down the bank lost jobs. you know what i think about? because this is where i live. this is where i'm from. that factory worker on the floor of that manufacturing facility

being given a pink slip and told his job is going overseas, her job is going overseas because they have a better business climate. think about that. have a good job, providing for your family, believe you're doing everything right, and because of a simple glitch here, because of really one person, that person is getting handed a pink slip. where's the accountability for that? where's the account ability to that family? when are we going to learn that it's this disruption in american lives that have cost this body and this congress its reputati reputation for no good reason, for no good reason. let me just close before i turn it over to my colleagues here with just a couple of statistics. because i get, quite honestly, sick and tired of the

characterization that this only applies to large facilities, like boeing and g.e. and caterpillar. you know, i am tired of that. let me tell you, in north dakota, we have 16 suppliers. these are small businesses. these are people who have done creative things in an environment that you wouldn't think would be successful. and they're suppliers to boeing. what happens when boeing can't do a deal? what happens when boeing moves their operation some place else and the requirement is that those parts be manufactured in that country? what happens? guess what? those 16 manufacturers are injured of the those 16 manufacturers have their lives disrupted through no fault of their own, not because they didn't produce quality product, not because they didn't do everything that they needed to do to be successful. you know, just last week, "the wall street journal" reported that 350 high-paying american

manufacturing jobs are headed to canada. that's a direct result in the lapsed -- last reauthorization back in 2015. i think we can clearly expect many more of these stories, many more of these stories. and i would just ask my colleagues who is going to go to that manufacturer or worker? who's going to talk to the children who now have a father who no longer has a job or a mother who no longer has a job and said because someone told me i'm not going to do it, i am not going to support you. i don't represent you. i represent an ideology here. and so this is a tragedy at so many levels. but, you know, i guess i naively thought when you win, you win. and when you win by big majorities, you ought to win for at least more than a day. and so i stand ready to fight

this fight. i stand ready to attach and do everything that i can to either get this nomination or to get a patch or legislation that will in fact provide opportunities for the bank to function. i will do everything that i can because when i go to bed at night, i don't think about boeing and the g.e. executives. that's not who i think about. i think about that person on the factory line who is working every day putting food on the table for their children and how this dysfunction here is costing them their livelihood and their security. that is a tragedy that we can't ignore. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor to my colleague from indiana. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i want to ac echo the words of y colleague from north dakota. i have six and a half million bosses back in indiana. these think tanks, these other organizations, they're not my boss.

mr. donnelly: the family that wants to make sure there's a paycheck coming into the house and all mom and dad wants is a chance to go to work, they're who we should be working for here, for the same people that my colleague from north dakota works for, in bismarck and in fargo, in munnsey and lafayette and all these suppliers around my state whose jobs are dependent on these export opportunities that we are walking away from by standing against the export import bank -- export-import bank. here we are again on the united states senate floor talking about the responsibility to do our job and to consider the president's nominees to important federal offices. the nominee we're talking about mark mcwaters is a republican nominee for the board of directors of the export-impart t bank and we are all lined up on this side to support him. it's the credit agency of the

united states. it helps american companies. so many in my state of indiana creating jobs and opportunity and a chance for people to go to work, put a roof over their kids' heads, to be able to retire with dignity, to be able to compete in the global economy. that's what this is about. every other country you look at has one of these exporten import bank -- export-import banks, is helping their organizations, their businesses, and their countries compete. each of us speaking today worked closely with senator heitkamp last year to reauthorize the bank. it was a strong overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of reauthorization. it demonstrated the need for this entity that helps create american jobs at no cost to

taxpayers, and in fact sends money back to the treasury. in 2014 the ex-im bank supported 164,000 american jobs. that's 164,000 moms and dads who are able to have dignity, a job, take care of their children, be a tremendous credit to their community. that's what this is about. 27.5 billion in exports and returned 675 million to the u.s. treasury. it creates jobs, reduces deficits, spurs economic growth. despite widespread support, our inaction here keeps the bank from being operational. in order to approve certain financing, the bank needs a minimum of three senate approved board members. we have two. mr. mcwaters' nomination has been pending in the senate

banking committee for five months. all it takes is a vote. request to confirm a nominee by unanimous consent have been rejected. american companies are struggling to compete against foreign competitors that benefit from currency manipulation, illegal trade, intellectual property theft, and other foreign barriers. yet a handful of senators are making life more difficult by not considering this nomination. if you're not willing to stand up for our own companies, for our own workers, then what are we doing? it is disappointing that an important tool for economic growth isn't being utilized simply because some here in the senate refuse to do our job. the american people expect better. the american people deserve

better. and the workers of this country deserve better. i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. a senator: first, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that frederick l. drezzler, a national security fellow in the office of senator ayotte be granted privileges on the floor during consideration of s. 2943, the national defense authorization act. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. mr. lee: mr. president, what my distinguished colleagues from north dakota and inare inproposing is to unleash the export-import bank from the constraints under which it currently must operate. to begin authorizing transactions above $10 million. between 2007 and 2014, 84% of the bank's subsidy and loan guarantee deals exceeded $10 million. 84%. and the vast majority of those were given to the wealthiest, most well-connected businesses

in america that should have no problem at all obtaining financing in the open market. mr. president, the export-import bank represents so much of what the american people resent and despise about washington, d.c., and this is a great depression era relic, one that lives on today, and it's grown into one of the most treasured relics for favoring banks, and it's a favored relic for well-heeled lobbyists, big government, and politically favored businesses. it's an 82-year-old case study in american corporate welfare, and for some reason this senate continues to support it. ex-im has managed to live through more than 30 corruption and fraud investigations into

its system of doling out taxpayer-backed subsidies and loan guarantees to foreign buyers of u.s. exports. and in 2013, for half of the financing deals within the export-import bank's portfolio, ex-im was either unable or unwilling to provide any justification whatsoever connected to its mission. mr. president, that's $18.8 billion in estimated export value that apparently had no connection to ex-im's mission, or if it did, ex-im didn't bother to offer that up. many of ex-im's supporters claim that the bank's main function is to support small business. that sounds nice, but the problem with it is that this claim doesn't stand up to even a modest amount of scrutiny. look at the institution's track record. only .5% of all small businesses

in america benefit from ex-im financing, .5%. and even thew tiny figure may well overstate the case because ex-im uses such a broad deaf nation of the term "small business." mr. president, confirming this nominee would allow ex-im to return to its old ways of approving massive financing deals for the largest corporations in coordination with the largest banks, all with the backing of american taxpayers. permanently ending the export-import bank would be a small but important and symbolic step toward restoring fairness to our economy and fairness to our government. it would prove to the american people that their elected representatives in congress have the courage to eliminate one of the many federal programs that foster cozy relationships between political and economic

insiders, providing a breeding ground for cronyism and for corruption. but so long as this senate remains unwilling to close ex-im, a we should very at the least make sure it doesn't have the ability to advance its crony agenda. now, you want to talk about harming competitiveness? let's talk about that. if we want to have is that discussion, let's have at that discussion now. you want to know what harms competitiveness in america? including and especially the kind of competitiveness that has tended to foster thevestment greatest economy the world -- foster the greatest economy the world has ever noarntion the kind of competitive n.a.s. makes it possible for small businesses to make it on the big stage? let's look at federal relations. federal regulations are a big deal in this kufnlt i remember being appalled 20 wreergs to learn that the federal regulatory system was imposing some $300 billion a year in corporate compliance costs,

regulatory compliance costs. now, those regulatory compliance costs might be borne immediately, initially by big corporations, by small corporations, mostly by businesses, but you know who pays for it, mr. president? hardworking americans. in fact, some have described this effect as sort after backdoor invisible and very regressive tax on the american people. so when i first learned much this problem, i started thinking of it this way. this is an additional $3 00 billion a year that the american people are essentially paying into the federal government because everything they buy -- goods and services become more expensive. they also pay for it in terms of diminished wages and unemployment. but they do pay for it and they pay pour it disproportionately at the low and middle end of the economic spectrum in america. because unlike our actual tax system, our visible tax system,

which is highly progressive, our backdoor invisible system, our regulatory system is highly regressive. some have estimated that this regulatory compliance cost, just complying with federal regulations, today costs the economy some $2 trillion a year, meaning that this is multiplied roughly sevenfold just in the last 20 years. mr. president, if you don't think that is a significant impediment to competitiveness in america, i don't know what is. this is a problem. some have estimated that each and every american household pays some $i $15,000 more each r for the goods that it purchases simply because of federal regulations. this, mr. president, hurts competitiveness, and so do our high tax rates. these harm competitive in and so, mr. president, i stand with the senior senator from alabama,

and i support him in his objection. thank you, mr. president. ms. heitcamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: would the senator from utah yield for a question? i would tell you that i share your concern about overregulation of the burden of regulation. i have been fighting regulation that makes no sense here in congress. i agree with you. but that's not what we're talking about today. we're talking about the export-import bank. and i would ask you, what percentage of all transactions at the bank -- at the export-import bank, what percentage go to small business? as defined by the bank? mr. lee: well, look, as you're asking that question, i assume you have the answer. ms. heitcamp: i do. mr. lee: and i'm sure you are prepared to tell it to me, so -- ms. heitcamp: well, obviously, i do want to maybe make some points that are contrary to some

of the discussion that you just h90% of all transactions are with small business under $10 million and the a transactions over $10 million is huge. i'll give you that. but we talk about the supply dhai--the supply chain that goeo that $10 million. the peterson institute recently estimated is that the united states is losing $50 million in exports each day that this nomination is not confirmed. and you know, we have disagreements with the senator from utah over the ex-im bank, disagreements that we debated when we reauthorized the bank. and so i would ask this senator from utah, why not move the confirmation of mcwatters to the floor so you could have a full-throated debate, again about the debate? why not have a full-throated debate instead of hiding it in

the banking committee, using that structure to thwart what in fact the majority of both bodies of the congress and the president have done when they've reauthorized the bank? mr. lee: i'm grateful to respond to both points for my distinguished colleague, the senator from north dakota. in the first place, as to the needed to have a full-throated deviate, i welcome it. it is what i have been wanting to have for a long time. instead of having a full-throated debate last year, we saw ex-im attached to a much larger package that allot of people were determined -- that a lot of people were determined to support regardless of what else was in there. so a lot of people voted for that package regardless of how they might feel about the export-import bank. but as for a full-throated debate, yeah, that's exactly what we need. we would get that if we could actually debate the reauthorization of export-import on its own merits, as i think we should have done last year. we were deprived that

opportunity and now we're using every opportunity we can to have a full-throated gaivment that's exactly the reason why we need to do this. as to the other figure you cited, the figure you cited with respect to the percentage of loans going to small business, sure, if you want to talk about the number of actual loans made, yeah, you can make that number look pretty good. but look at the number that i think is more significant, that only .5% of all small businesses in america actually benefit from ex-im financing. that's -- that's a pretty significant deal. look at how much of the lending authority in the total dollar amount that the ex-im bank supplies to businesses regardless of their size could in fact obtain financing in the open market. again, we are not back in the great depression anymore. this is a great depression-era

relic. so regardless of what you think about the great depression-era dynamics at plashings that causes those serving in this body and in the house of representatives in the 1930's to put in program in plashings we , we have other challenges today and many are created by the government itself, by the government being too big a presence within our marketplace, inuring ultimately to the benefit of big business and harming everyone else. ms. heitcamp: mr. president, just -- i see other colleagues here ready to make presentations. i just want to make two final points. if you want a full-throated debate, then move the nomination out of the committee, on the floor. let's have the debate. you're using the nomination to reemphasize and to relitigate the ex-im bank. let's do it. in the meantime, let's appreciate that in spite of everything that's being said here, we need the bank to be competitive.

we need the bank to make sure that we can in fact manufacture in this country and that's something that gets lost in all the rhetoric. and i think that one of the things that we have an obligation to think about is all those jobs that are going to go someplace else and all those americans who are going to stand in the line for unemployment benefits and who are going to get their pink slips and who wants to line up in the united states senate at the factory door as they're walking through the last time and shake their hand and say, you know, too bad, you lost your job. so i yield the floor and we intend to have further confirmations about the ex-im -- conversations about the ex-im bank. the presiding officer: the the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much. i would note that senator klobuchar is here. she wanted to participate in the discussion about the i.m.f. but we shortly have a vote and we would very much like to

proceed and the majority leader is here, too. but i'm prepared to speak now on the pending reed amendment that will be in order for a vote at 11:15. mr. president, i believe i -- the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island has the floor. the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: move to proceed to calendar number 120, h.r. 2578. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the mexico. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 2578, an act making aappropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 120rbgs h.r. 2578, an act making aappropriations for the departments of commerce, and justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 20 1-6rbgs and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators -- mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the mandatory quorum call be waive. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i withdraw the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: motion is withdrawn. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president, i would like to make some brief remarks with respect to the reed amendment that is pending on a vote. senator mikulski would like to also. i note the chairman is here, but i would ask unanimous consent that when i finish my brief remarks that senator mikulski be recognized.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. we've had a very extensive and very thoughtful debate about the underlying amendment by senator mccain to increase o.c.o. spending by $18 billion, strictly for department of defense operations and functions. and those are very critical and very important. but there's been two principles that we have followed over the last several years when it comes to trying to at least push back the effects of sequestration. and those principles have been that the security of the united states is significantly affected by the department of defense operations but not exclusively. indeed, there are many functions outside the parameters of the department of defense that are absolutely critical and essential to the protection of the american people at home and abroad. the f.b.i., the department of homeland security, the c.d.c. that has been one of the

principles. the other principle is that we've recognized that in lifting these temporary limits we have to do it on an equal basis. what our amendment, the amendment offered by myself and senator mikulski does is embrace these two principles. we would add an additional $18 billion to the chairman's $18 billion that would encompass the broader view of national security and do so in a way that i think is very sensible and allow us to go forward as we have in the past. we recognize, all of us recognize the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces and the fact that they continue to serve as a front line of our defense in so many different aspects. but we also recognize that defending our interest means also agencies outside the department of defense. the state department, homeland security, et cetera, that have absolutely critical and indispensable roles in our

national security. reflecting on the comments before about the potential for incidents both here and abroad, and if you go back just to 9/11, that was not a result of a failure to have trained army brigades or marine regiments or aircraft carriers at sea. that was a deficiency in screening passengers getting on airplanes. that is a failure to connect intelligence at -- that one f.b.i. office had and was not shared effectively. those threats to the united states will not be directly remedied even as we increase resources to department of defense. resources have to go to these agencies. and that, i think, is something that we all recognize. and that's what at the heart of what we're doing. in addition of the last decade we've seen a host of other threats, particularly cyber threats which were rudimentary back in 2001, 2002 and 2003. now we see them as ubiquitous,

not rudimentary, and threatening, and with increasing sort of sophistication. i recall in a hearings senator collins and i had with the department of transportation and the department of housing and urban development, we asked the i.g., what is' the biggest issue that you think is addressing your department right now, and both said, well, it's this issue of cybersecurity, protecting the data we have, protecting records that we have, protecting ourselves from being an unwitting conduit through us into even more sensitive government systems. and so within our commitment we proposed significant resources for cyber protections throughout the federal government. homeland security, h.h.s., the h.u.d. department, et cetera. these are essential and i think the american people understand that. we also understand that our infrastructure is critical to

our economic well-being, our economic growth and part of our dilemma going forward and one of the reasons we're locked in the sequestration battle is unless we're growing our economy, we're continuing to be faced with difficult challenges about what do we fund, how do we fund it, how do we provide the revenue to meet these obligations. and one of the surest ways to increase our growth is to invest in our infrastructure. so what we're proposing here, i think, makes sense in two fundamental ways. it recognizes, which i think everyone does, that our national security is not exclusively related to the programs and functions of the department of defense. and that our national security is a function not just of our military intelligence and other related agencies, but it's the vitality and strength of the country, the ability to grow and to afford these investments in

defense, in homeland security and others. and we make it clear. we make it clear in this legislation that that is our proposal. and the stakes are clear. we want to go ahead and support a broad range increase in resources. and the final point i'll make is that this is all in the shadow of the ultimate issue, which is getting rid of sequestration not just for one part of the government but for the entire government. and if we don't address that next year, we are going to be in an extraordinarily dire situation. so with that, i would ask my colleagues sincerely and very, very fervently to support the reed-mikulski amendment. i think that will put us on the track to true national security. and with that, i would yield the floor to the chairwoman. ms. mikulski: thank you very

much, senator reed. mr. president, how much time does our side have? the presiding officer: there's no divided time. we have a vote scheduled at 11:15 but no divided time. ms. mikulski: i will be crisp in my remarks. but first, i just want to do a quick comment about world leadership and how blessed we are to have what we have. i want to compliment both the chair of the which the of armed services and its ranking member. the chair, senator mccain, is a graduate of the naval academy, a well-known and well-respected war hero who his entire life has stood for defending america. our ranking member, senator jack reed of rhode island, himself a west point graduate and a paratrooper, so he knows what it's like to make big leaps for the defense of the country. and they have done their best to do a bill. they find that their budget allocation is very tight, and we understand that.

but we seek here parity. that what the gentleman from arizona, senator mccain, is offering is his amendment, and he's spoken thoroughly and eloquently about it. senator reed has spoken eloquently about how not all national security is in the department of defense, and we need more money for the state department, homeland security. there are others in our part of the bill, the nondiscretionary part, related to research and development and also investments in health and education. there are those who would say, senator mikulski, you know what senator mccain wants to do. yes. you know what senator reed wants to do? not all defense is in d.o.d. yes. but aren't you being squishy? no, i'm not being squishy at all when we talk about the need of nondiscretionary for research and others.

very quickly, when we won world war ii, roosevelt made it clear that it was our arsenal of democracy that enabled one of the greatest fighting machines ever assembled to be successful. we need to continue to have an arsenal of democracy. that arsenal of democracy will always be cutting edge and maintain its qualitative edge because of what we will do in research and development often in civilian agencies, whether it's the department of energy that will produce more trucks, whether it's the national science foundation working with others to make us even more advantaged in computational capacity so that we have the best computers to defend us not only in cybersecurity but in others. there is a new kind of arsenal democracy, and we need to have a strong economy and we need to

have continued research and development to maintain our qualitative edge. then let's go to the people. the wonderful men and women who serve our military. only 2% of the population signs up, but when they sign up, boy are we proud of them. we share that on both sides of the aisle. with general martin dempsey, the former head of the joint chiefs, himself a decorated hero, said to me, was this, senator mikulski out of every four people who want to enlist in our military, only one is taken because only one will be fit for duty. one category can't pass because they can't pass the physical fitness. they have too many physical problems. well, why is that? then the other won't be taken by the military because they failed the literacy and the math. failure of education there.

and then third, there's another category because of issues either with addiction or emotional problems. so we need to look at our total population so that you need a totally strong america to have a total stpropbg defense. i know why some people say what i want to do and some of my colleagues want to do. we not only want to maintain parity in the budget act consistent with our peupbls, -- principles but look at that. also, mr. president, when we vote, know why we're doing this. we want to maintain our arsenal of democracy. we want to maintain our cutting edge and our qualitative edge. and we also want our young men and women to be fit for duty, whether it's for military service or other service to the nation. i know the gentleman from arizona is waeugts, the chairman of the bill. i've now completed my remarks

and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, thank you. i want to thank the senator from maryland. she is tough and principled and a great representative of her state and a friend for many years, and i thank her for her words. and i also respectfully obviously disagree. but this vote is obviously one that places domestic considerations on the same plane as national security. if you look around the world,s mr. president, i think it's pretty obvious that since 2011, the world was a very different place when sequestration was enacted. we need to have a military that is prepared to fight and that's not unready and planes that can fly and ships that can sail and men and women who are trained to fight. all of those have been impacted by sequestration. with the director of national

intelligence telling the armed services committee and the world that there will be a tax in europe and the -- there will be attacks and europe and the united states of america, we cannot afford an $18 billion cut from last year and over a $100 billion cut since 9/11. every one of our military leaders has told us that we are putting the men and women who are serving in uniform at greater risk. that's not fair to them, i say to the senator from maryland. it's not fair. so i don't put our domestic needs on the same plane as our national security. i believe our national security is our first obligation, and that's what my amendment is all about. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes on the democrat side and 3 minutes on my side prior to this second vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: so, mr. president,

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i understand we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. reed: i also understand if we dispense with the quorum call, you can commence the vote. the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. reed: mr. president, i would request unanimous consent that we dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

reed amendment number 4549 to the mccain amendment numbered 4229 to s. 2943, the national defense authorization act, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment numbered 4549 offered by the senator from rhode island, mr. reed, to amendment numbered 4229 to s. 2943 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays

are 55. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be six minutes of debate equally divided prior to the cloture vote. the senate will be in order. the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president? mr. president, today i will vote against senator mccain's amendment 4229 to add $18 billion for additional spending for department of defense. mr. president, it's really not in order. i support the troops in their mission, especially at maryland's nine military bases. while there are many items i'd like to see more money for, i believe we can meet the needs of our national defense within the budget cap. for fiscal year 2017, the

department of defense appropriations bill reported unanimously by the appropriations committee last week did that. the defense appropriations bill accomplishes many objectives without a budget gimmick. it uses base funding to provide $600 million to meet israel's missile defense, an increase of $455 billion above the request. the mccain amendment offers $465 million appropriations will have $600 million for israeli defense. let's look at new modern ships. the mccain amendment authorizes $90 million less than the ship than what we do. we put in $175 million. the mccain adds nothing to an account for the national guard and reserve. the defense appropriations adds $900 million for the guard and

reserve so they can recapitalize themselves so they can be part of our fighting military where our commander in chief does it. also we can look at something like the arctic. there is a threat to the arctic. the gentlelady from alaska has spoken eloquently about it. we have money in here for a polar icebreaker. the russians have 17, we have one. it's in ant takoma park particular a. -- it's in antarctica. we can do this in defense appropriations. i urge rejection of the mccain amendment. we can meet our national defense without a budget gimmick. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, facts are stubborn things. they had $17 billion. we want $18 billion to restore the cuts from last year. so i say to the senator from maryland, facts are stubborn things. the fact is that this increases the spending by $18 billion, which brings us up to last

year's level. look how the world has changed in the last year. look at the commitments that this nation has assumed as a result of a failed obama foreign policy. it increases military pay to 2.1%. the current administration budget 1.6%, fully funds our troops in afghanistan, stops the cuts to end-strength capacity. for example, it cancels planned reduction of 15,000 active army soldiers, prevents cutting in the tenth carrier air wing, includes additional funding for 36 uh-6 blackhawk helicopters, five apaches, five chinook, an additional $319 million for israel defense programs, $2.2 billion to readiness. we have ships that can't sail and planes that can't fly and pilots that can't train. do you know our pilots are flying less hours than russian and chinese pilots are, thanks to sequestration?

it addresses the navy's ongoing fighter shortfall and readiness. it supports the navy's ship-building programs necessary to fund the additional d.d.g. 51 and restores the ship. that's the job of the authorizers. you're doing the job of the authorizers, i say to the senator from maryland, and that's wrong. it's up to us to authorize, not to you. it's your job to fund, not to authorize. so what's a vote no going to do, my friends? it's going to be a vote in favor for another year the pay our troops doesn't keep pace with inflation. cutting more soldiers and marine a vote no is on the operational requirements. voting no would be in favor of continuing to shrink the number of aircraft that are available to the air force, navy and marine corps. voting no would be a favor -- a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set the timeline for our mission in afghanistan. voting no is a vote in favor of continuing to ask our men in

uniform to perform more and more tasks and more. the chief of staff of the united states army has said if we continue these cuts, we are putting the lives of the men and women in the military in danger. if you vote no, don't go home and say you support the military because you do not. i yield. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the mccain amendment numbered 4229 to s. 2943, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived, and the question is, is it the sense of the senate the debate on amendment numbered 4229, offered by the senator from arizona to s. 2943 shall be brought to a

close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: