party's interest to sit there. for heaven's sake, go. [shouting] >> the bbc reports a challenge to the leadership is expected following a no-confidence vote by mps. the labor leader says quitting would betray all the members that backend. you can feel the prime minister's questions on c-span.org. the senate in recess until 215. until then, some of the debate that occurred before members voted on the puerto rico debt bill. >> on this debate, we are about to ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes -- nine minutes be given to eight minutes to the supporters of this legislation. senator menendez and give my

colleague >> thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor to ask my colleagues to not vote for cloture on this measure and to get the senate a chance to work its will. many people know that the legislation is being brought over from the house and i appreciate the relationship i have with my colleague renée and energy and natural resources committee have about the opportunity to have endpoint as many of my colleagues would with a simple amendment process. so that is being denied here today. if we basically invoke cloture and everyone is admitted this is a flawed bill. there is not one person who is in a presentation who hasn't admitted it is a flawed product for the house of

representatives. why not take time today and improve that bill? why not let the senate work as well as they do on so many issues because we have the time. new jersey will prove we are definitely going to be here for a few days doing nothing so why not instead of doing nothing to approve a bill that by all accounts is logged. also, there's so much discussion as somehow july 1st is the magic day. actually, july 11th is next scheduled legal hearing on this and that is plenty of time for the united states senate to weigh and on a few ways to improve the legislation and to make sure we are not suspending the constitutionality of puerto rico in the process. there is structure at the bill and i prefer structure that is clean and simple, understood by

my colleagues and is going to lead to success by all of us. a process that will be challenged on constitutionality. puerto rico will begin, the united states government will continue and we will not get a resolution of this issue. said the appointments clause requires that these officers being appointed via the authority under federal laws confirmed by the senate. but if the bill is enacted, your board members with significant authority over federal law and not appointed by the senate. it is going to be challenged constitutionally. why is this important because they're a hedge funds out there we want a process here and legislation that all the debt is part of a discussion and people

can make the conclusion for how to get out of the situation by giving the structure of bankruptcy need to be given the puerto rico. also, there's questions about this board and who they are besides the fact they are likely to be challenged in court as unconstitutional. i bought at the point last night that they can actually receive gifts. gifts from who? what can the board received? is that cars? is that equipment. we are here not to say let's take the time instead to make sure we go through this process and improving the bill in the united states senate. the colleagues on both sides of the out can appreciate. the small group of people is given very large powers.

this is just a sample for a majority of twine made by the two leaders said the senate and the house can approve the budget for puerto rico, set aside enacted law by the puerto rican legislature and disapprove or approve and expedite permitting of projects. this is a lot of power. if you don't think someone is going to challenge the constitutionality of this, i guarantee you they will challenge it. in the meantime, you are going to have legal wrangling and a continued process. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation, get the senate a chance to work its will, make sure they are protecting the taxpayers on the amount of debt we are also going to be seen on this legislation. >> the senator's time is expired >> if we don't move forward in an orderly fashion. i think the president and yield the floor.

>> the proponents of the measure have eight minutes remaining. >> the opponents of approximately four minutes remaining. >> i'm going to speak. i know my colleague and friend from new jersey is here and i've been given eight minutes and i don't know how much of that time i will use. i know he spoke yesterday but i'm sure he wants to speak again this morning. i will yield whatever is left. the other remaining time is controlled by the other side. i asked for clarification. senator from new jersey. >> the senator from washington with five of nine minutes in our minutes remaining for opponents of the bill.

>> about it is my entire time i will yield the remainder to the new jersey senator although we have opposing positions. mr. president, many times on the floor of the senate we are faced with difficult sometimes impossible choices. at the end of the day, lewis you could sit down and write the solution that you believe would achieve its purpose and do it in a responsible manner. many times we don't get that luxury. this is an example. what a rico is a unique relationship with the united states. it has been said, some have said disagreement is in the nature of a colonial imposition on the island of puerto rico. as the law currently stands, puerto rico cannot save itself. it is $70 billion in debt and those who hold the debt, the bondholders are demanding payment. the puerto rican economy is struggling to survive and struggling to make a basic $2 billion payment on that debt

july 1st. under these emergency circumstances, there is only one place to turn. it's not an imposing colonial power. the united states of america has been a partnership it should be in the past and for its future. we are trying to find a reasonable way through this that will appeal to both political parties. of course, the political party sees this differently. a democratic solution looks a lot different than the republican solution. what we have before us is a compromise, a measure entered into with the cooperation, collaboration and bargaining between the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, the white house and republican leaders. so it is a mixed bag politically that comes to us today. i support it, though i will be first to tell you there were parts i find absolutely objectionable. bring in the notion that they will put their economy on a

solid footing by reducing minimum wage is laughable as far as i'm concerned. if you lower the minimum wage to in a constant low-level, more and more people they've puerto rico, which they can come to the united states with the minimum wages significantly larger same thing when it comes to overtime pay. they are facing virtual bankruptcy and oversight board has been the vehicle to stability. the oversight or it is loaded, even though it is 43 on the other side. i hope that they will in good conscience come up with approaches that are acceptable. what is the alternative if we vote no? members say let's vote against it. the alternative is to give the

bondholders all of the cards puerto rico, which is struggling to provide basic services will have even more money taken away from it. what is a disastrous situation will become disastrously worse if we vote no in do-nothing. and has the power to enter into voluntary negotiation on the debt of puerto rico and if we can't reach a voluntary agreement, they have power to go to court for restructuring on all of the debt that faces that island. that is significant. i hope it doesn't reach that point. i hope there's a voluntary negotiation period to say we are going to protest the board by voting against the creation of the board and its outcome that i've described is to throw the people who live there into

chaos. i received a telephone call from the archbishop of chicago, place to pitch. i respect him very much. he called me on several issues but he said my real purpose for the call is to tell you the archbishop of san juan, puerto rico has reached out to me and told me of the desperate situation they are facing a puerto rico today. 100, maybe 200 schools have closed. there was no money to buy gasoline for the buses to take the children to school. many of the medical services are down to zero. one doctor a day of saving puerto rico and they can afford to lose any. currently the central, medical, there's a serious question as to whether children who are trying to survive cancer will have the drugs that they need for a fighting chance. that is how desperate it is. he went further to say the air ambulance service on puerto rico, which transports the most gravely ill people to medical

care is now not flying. can afford to. people have to pay in cash for dialysis services. this is a disastrous situation in the notion that we could vote no today and not accept the consequences which will be terrible for puerto rico is not a fair as of this problem you guess i would've written a different note and constructed a different oversight board. the choice is not between some idea for some better approach. the choices before us and the choices yes or no. a no vote is one that will imperil this country make the poor people living their face even worse hardship. how cannot be a good outcome? how can we bargain for the possibility that several months from now there may be a better constructed oversight board. i think the responsible thing to do is to move forward. don't take my word for it alone. i represent the state of illinois and a. puerto rico 3,100,000 puerto

ricans who live in my state and i work with them. i've met with them. this morning i received a letter from pedro perez received two is the member of congress from puerto rico. he goes on to write that as puerto rico sole elect a representative, i request you vote in favor of s. 2328. they approved for mesa in a strong bipartisan vote that all too rare event that i hope will predicate and the senate this week. he goes on to talk about the imperfections which we all know and he goes on to talk about what the island of puerto rico is facing. we received the same requester and the governor puerto rico. to ignore these people and the people who live there and the perils they face i don't believe is the responsible course of action. we have to move forward in a positive fashion and that is why i'm going to support this measure today and urge my colleagues to do the same. it passed at the boat in the house as the resident of

congressman related in his letter is an indication that it's an indication that it's an imperfect but disagreement may be and the best we can come up with in this terrible in perilous situation facing the island of puerto rico. i urge my colleagues today to vote yes on cloture. zero yes on final passage of this bill. give puerto rico a fighting chance. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from new jersey. >> how much time do we have? >> senator from new jersey has approximately three minutes and 40 seconds remaining. >> is that the time that was reserved? i understand a five-minute time was reserved. >> the time from washington past the initial reserve time was used against the total reserve

time. >> i ask unanimous consent to have up to five minutes. >> is there objection? >> without objection. >> i research my colleagues to vote no on cloture. as dr. ed priced far too high for relief that is far too much searching. now i came to this chamber in september and december of last year to raise the alarm bells about what was happening in puerto rico and the majority held the ball and ran out the clock attempting to silence the 3.5 million united states citizens live in a puerto rico of their voice in this debate. let's be clear about what this vote means. despite what the proponents of the bill will argue opposing this cloture vote -- >> that debate from earlier today. we will address the senate is returning to work on the puerto rico dad bill. we returned to live coverage.

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, there be five hours of time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. further, that senator menendez or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table a motion to concur with amendment number 4865, and that senator sanders or his designee be recognized to make a budget point of order, and that senator mcconnell or his designee be recognized to make a motion to waive the point of order. further, that following the use or yielding back of the five hours of debate, the senate vote on the motions in the order listed. finally, that if a motion to table is not successful, then following disposition of the motion to waive, the remaining postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to concur with

the amendment be withdrawn and the senate vote on the motion to concur with the house amendment with no further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president? reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: the democrats have 115 minutes. i would ask consent that that be divided 40 minutes for menendez, 40 minutes for sanders, ten minutes for cantwell, ten minutes for heitkamp and 50 minutes for proponents of the legislation. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, further reserving my right to object, and i would also say just because you have the time, you don't have to use it. i would hope senators on both sides would understand that the sooner we get to the votes, the better off we will be. i would also say this. i appreciate on my side the work done by senator manchin of west

virginia. that state in the last few weekw months has been hit harder than any state deserves to be hit. it was just awful what has happened there. but he has been stalwart in recognizing the work that he has to do there. we understand his advocacy for years now, especially the last few months, on the miners there and their pensions and health care benefits. we recognize that. we think we have ways of helping him, and we have something worked out that we think is appropriate, and we've discussed that with him. i would also recognize senator sanders. everyone knows thefer vancy of his -- knows the fer vancy of his opinion on a number of different things, and he certainly has one on this matter. he has 40 minutes to explain that. we appreciate his cooperation. the person that has been a voice

on puerto rico for more than the last few months, for years, has been bob menendez from new jersey. he has been very articulate in all of the caucuses we have had where we have discussed this on this floor, and i admire his feelings on this. i wish i could say we have solved all of his problems. we have not been able to do that, but i certainly want everyone to know he's done a terrific job of recognizing in his opinion what is wrong with this legislation, and he has -- there is no one better to articulating a position than bob menendez. senator cantwell, she has worked very hard on this legislation with the chair of the energy committee, the senior senator from alaska. they worked very hard. they had a way forward. they couldn't get it done. they're going to continue to work on things together. we need more of that.

we have the energy bill coming up. we hope we can work something out to get to conference on that and move forward on that. that is a bill that is years overdue. we have been trying to do that for almost five years. so i hope that they can work something out on that. senator heitkamp is going to come and give us her opinion of what we should do on ex-im bank. she has been articulate in working with senator cantwell on that. so, mr. president, i appreciate the work of -- of the republican leader, his assistant, the senior senator from texas. we -- this has been kind of a difficult issue for everybody. we all didn't get what we wanted, and that includes democrats and republicans. i wish we could have done better, but this is what we got from the house. it had been worked on over there with the republicans, with the speaker, with senator -- i'm sorry, with the speaker, with leader pelosi, the president's

people. this is what we have. we had to work through this. that's about the only thing we could do. i wish we had done more, but i am satisfied that this is going to be a broad, broad step to help the people of puerto rico who are desperate for help. i have no objection. the presiding officer: is there objection to the majority leader's request? without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: for the information of our colleagues, this sets up three votes that will allow us to finish the bill later in the day, but i would remind everyone we have a briefing at 4:00, from 4:00 to 5:00 on the isil issue, which i encourage all of our members to attend. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. i rise in very strong opposition to the puerto rico oversight management and economic

stability act, the so-called promesa act. this is a terrible piece of legislation, setting horrific precedent and must not be passed. mr. president, the united states of america should not treat puerto rico as a colony. we cannot and must not take away the democratic rights of the 3.5 million americans of puerto rico and give virtually all power on that island to a seven-member board which will be dominated as it happens by four republicans. this legislation strips away the most important powers of the democratically elected officials of puerto rico, the governor, the legislature and the municipal governments as well. we must not allow that to

happen. this is not what the united states of america is supposed to be about, and this is not how we should treat a territory in the year 2016. the bottom line is that the united states must not become a colonial master, which is precisely what this legislation allows. any decisions that are made regarding the future of puerto rico must be made by the people of that island and their elected officials, but this legislation, i should add, is not just about taking away the democratic rights of the people of puerto rico. it is about punishing them economically. since 2006, puerto rico has been in the midst of a major economic

depression. in the last ten years, puerto rico has lost 20% of its jobs, about 60% of puerto rico's adult population are either unemployed or have given up looking for work. over the last five years alone, more than 150 public schools have been shut down, and the childhood poverty rate in puerto rico is now 58%. there is a mass migration out of puerto rico to the mainland of professionals because there is simply no work on the island. in the midst of this human suffering and economic turmoil, it is morally repugnant that billionaire hedge fund managers on wall street are demanding that puerto rico fire teachers,

close schools, cut pensions and lower the minimum wage so that they can reap huge profits off the suffering and misery of the american citizens on that island. we have got to understand that puerto rico's $70 billion in debt is unsustainable and unpayable. that's just a fact. you cannot get blood out of a stone. and the reason or one of the major reasons that it is unpayable has a lot to do with the greed of wall street vulture funds. in recent years, vulture funds have purchased a significant amount of puerto rico's debt. in fact, it has been estimated that over one-third of puerto rico's debt is now owned by these vulture funds who are getting interest rates of up to

34% on tax-exempt bonds that they purchased for as little as 29 cents on the dollar. let me repeat that. vulture funds are getting interest rates of up to 34% on tax-exempt bonds that they purchased for as little as 29 cents on the dollar. let us be clear -- this issue is a significant part of what the entire debate regarding puerto rico is about. billionaire hedge fund managers who purchase puerto rican bonds for pennies on the dollar now want a 100% return on their investment. while schools are being shut down in puerto rico, while pensions are being threatened

with cuts, while children on the island go hungry. that is morally unacceptable. that should not be allowed by the united states congress. now, mr. president, it is bad enough for republicans in the house to write legislation that takes away the democratic rights of u.s. citizens living in puerto rico, but adding insult to injury, this legislation does something even more insulting. at a time when health, education and nutrition programs will likely be cut, this legislation, if you can believe it, requires the taxpayers of puerto rico to pay for the financial control board at that at the unbelievabf

$370 million in order to fund the control board's bureaucracy. so think about it for a second. the control board will likely cut programs for the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor in an island where 58% of the children are already living in poverty because puerto rico does not have enough money to take care of its most vulnerable people, and in the midst of all that, $370 million are going to be sucked away from puerto rico in order to pay for the administration of the financial control board. this to me is literally beyond belief. mr. president, puerto rico must be given the time it needs to

grow its economy, to create jobs, to reduce its poverty rate, and to expand its tax base so that it can pay back its debt in a way that is fair and is just. in my view we need austerity mott for the people of puerto rico but for the billionaire wall street hedge fund managers who have exacerbated the financial crisis on the island. we must tell them loudly and clearly that they cannot get everything they want while workers in puerto rico are fired, while schools are shut down, while health care is underfunded and while children in that island live in poverty. mr. president, i am very disappointed that this extremely

important piece of legislation is being pushed through congress without allowing any amendments here in the senate. that is not the way we should be doing business. if allowed, i will offer an amendment in the form of legislation that i have introduced, legislation which would allow puerto rico's debt to be structured through the creation of a reconstruction finance corporation. let us never forget that in 2008 when wall street's greed, recklessness and illegal behavior nearly destroyed our economy, the federal reserve provided $16 trillion in virtu virtually zero interest loans to every major financial institution in this country as well as central banks and

corporations throughout the world. well, if the federal reserve and the treasury department could move quickly to stabilize our economy and global markets in 2008, we could surely help the 3.5 million american citizens in puerto rico who are hurting today. the fed can and should provide low interest loans to puerto rico and facilitate an orderly restructuring of puerto rico's debt. mr. president, this legislation is both a political and economic disaster for the people of puerto rico. this legislation takes away their democratic rights and self-governance and will impose harsh austerity measures which will make the poorest people in puerto rico even poorer. this is legislation that should not be passed by the united

states congress. mr. president, i rise to offer a point of order against this legislation -- mr. sanders: mr. president, i understand that the republican representative has -- will be coming down in a few moments so i will reserve my time and reclaim the floor in a few minutes when the republican representative is here. i would move to a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i would like to raise a point of

order against this legislation. i make a point of order that the motion to concur violates section 425a2 of the congressional budget act of 1974. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolution -- resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purpose of the motion to concur in the house amendments to s. 2328 and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. sanders: i reserve the balance of my time.

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, as we all now know, the government of puerto rico has run up an astounding debt and has more than disdz 40 billion of unfunded pension promises. to address this financial challenge, the senate has taken up legislation to provide greater oversight of the territory's finances and some broad debt resolution authority. that bill which the authors entitled the puerto rico oversight management and economic stability act or promesa is certainly not something that i would have written and in many areas leaves a lot to be desired.

nonetheless, i voted to invoke cloture on the bill because thanks to the stubbornness of the treasury department and lack of transparency from the government of puerto rico, it is the only option on the table and delaying action would only hurt the americans who reside on the island. astoundingly, the government of puerto rico has not provided audited financial statements since 2013. despite its responsibilities to do so under continuing disclosure requirements and requests from congress and investors. the territory's debt challenges have been center stage here in congress for about a year now and throughout that time, we've received only stale largely useless and untrust worthy information regarding puerto rico's finances. in fact, some of the disclosures have been down right insulting. for example, earlier this year i submitted a number of detailed

questions to the governor of puerto rico about the state of the island's finances. one of my questions was very straightforward. quote -- what component units of puerto rico's government has issued debt and how much does each owe? majoritily the governor in a delayed response answered that simple question with a quote from an outdated report issued by the federal reserve bank of new york. in other words, the very government that issued the debt would not even provide information on what it owes and instead quoted a third party. this is not an isolated incident, mr. president. throughout this public discussion, we have yet to get anything resembling a firsthand account of the true fiscal situation in puerto rico. in fact, this lack of transparency, and that's putting it kindly, has gone on for years. lately, however, puerto rico's

withholding of information seems to have been strategic and part of a legislative strategy in concert with the treasury department. the u.s. treasury department was given authority to provide technical assistance to puerto rico, but evidently has not advised puerto rico's government to open its books. in addition, despite numerous requests that i have made to treasury to provide briefings on the nature of their technical assistance, they have so far refused to provide any such insight. we've heard calls from various sources including members of the senate for the securities and exchange commission to investigate actions taken on the part of private investors in relation to puerto rico's debt crisis. given the apparent coordination between treasury and the government of puerto rico and the overall lack of information we have about the current state of the territory's debt and finances, i sent a letter this

week to the s.e.c. asking that actions and inactions by government officials be included in any investigation into puerto rico's debt. today i also sent a letter to treasury secretary lew inquiring about reported confidentiality agreements that treasury officials have signed with component units of puerto rico's government. the existence of such agreements raises many questions. in disturbing reports that treasury officials may have completed negotiations between puerto rico and its creditors in order to get a better legislative outcome raises even more questions. mr. president, with respect to puerto rico, the obama administration is and has been interested in one thing and one thing only -- obtaining the broadest and most comprehensive debt resolution authority for puerto rico possible. in an obvious attempt that favor public pensions in puerto rico.

while i tried last year to work with administration officials toward a resolution for puerto rico, treasury officials remained extraordinarily rigid in their objectives. moreover, while that administration and many of my friends on the other side have been very forthcoming in offering ideas of how to send roughly $50 billion of extra health funds to puerto rico and nearly $10 billion in difficult to administer tax incentives, none of them have been forthcoming about the actual costs of their proposals. they have also persisted in identifying what they call -- quote -- health funding inequities, unquote. they never seem to want to own up to the fact that they purposefully included a cliff in health funding for puerto rico as part of obamacare. mr. president, this health funding cliff alone should be a clear indication to the people of puerto rico that while the

administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about one way about how they care for the people of puerto rico, they often act quite differently and give far more attention and effort to protecting the interest of public sector unions. well, mr. president, i have made clear all along that my main objective has been to serve the interests of the people of puerto rico, not the politicians on the island who are here in washington, d.c. that is why i voted to invoke cloture on the legislation before us today, despite the rigidities of the obama administration and the government of puerto rico. unfortunately, we have been put in a position where if this legislation were to fail, there would only be more suffering for the people of puerto rico. we cannot wait for another administration here or on the island to finally get accurate and verified information on puerto rico's finances. we cannot wait for the obama administration to start engaging reasonably with congress about

health care funding or tax incentives for the island. therefore, in order to finally determine the true state of puerto rico's finances and to provide relief from the massive indebtedness accumulated by a profligate puerto rican government, i will once again be voting yes on this bill. the bill does not have any significant effect on the federal deficit or our massive federal debt, which is a good thing. unfortunately, it also won't have any significant effect on puerto rico's economic growth. but it does promise to finally uncover what is beneath the opaque web-like structure of the puerto rican government's finances. and if we're actually going to be able to meaningfully address the island's financial challenges, that will be a very important step. the bill also has the potential to provide some disaster relief which can help the people of puerto rico if effectively implemented and not used simply

as a way to funnel resources into public pension programs. despite reforms to pension programs touted by the puerto rican government in recent years, the territory has not actually funded those reforms. as a result, large public pension programs on the island remain in effect entirely unreformed, still allowing for things like government subsidized loans to participants for cultural trips intended for -- quote -- relaxation, unquote. unfortunately, there has been a lot of other misinformation about puerto rico's financial information put forward by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, by some administration officials who know better and by many in the house who could stand to learn more. none of that if we let it persist will help the people of puerto rico. mr. president, let me close by agreeing with some remarks made yesterday by my colleague and good friend, senator cantwell, who correctly identified that

whatever happens today with promesa issues surrounding puerto rico, these issues surrounding puerto rico are not going away. i will note that this legislation sets up a congressional task force to consider impediments to growth in puerto rico, including those that may stem from the federal government policies. perhaps senator cantwell and i could serve together on the task force. in principle, the task force can allow congress to continue to address issues surrounding how federal tax and health care policies affect puerto rico and how changes could possibly influence growth. to be clear, i believe that this task force could be useful only if both sides of the aisle are willing to seriously discuss ideas beyond sending tens of billions of dollars to puerto rico. if the task force will only consider a wish list of federal spending, i don't see it accomplishing all that much for the people living in puerto

rico. in any event, mr. president, it is long past time for holding out hope that the government of puerto rico will provide accurate financial information. similarly, it is likely a fruitless endeavor to keep waiting on the obama administration to move away from this vigil i.d. focus on obtaining broad debt restructuring authority for puerto rico. we should not hold the people of puerto rico hostage to the rigidities of self-interested politicians, neither here nor in the territory. consequently, i plan to support promesa despite its shortcomings. i urge my colleagues to do the same, and i appreciate the honest and decent people in puerto rico and wish them the very best and hope that this bill will help them to get on the path that will cause that great and beautiful place to become even better. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i'd ask the pro siding officer to advise me when i have used 25 minutes of my time. the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified. mr. menendez: mr. president, i have come to the floor time and

time again on this issue with a simple message. promesa, which is the spanish word for promise, is not a promise, it's a power play, leaving the people of puerto rico unable to manage their own government, make their own decisions and do what they believe is necessary for their own future. but in the case of puerto rico, we have decided not to help them make their own decisions but to take the powers of governing away from them. now, while i have offered many amendments, unfortunately my colleagues seem to have thrown up their hands and said this bill cannot get any better, and we won't even try to do the people's work and have actual debate and votes in the senate. and i'd note that calls for a thorough debate on the senate floor were bipartisan in nature. i'd remind my colleagues that each one of us was elected to this very chamber to debate and enact legislation to improve the lives of americans, and that includes the 3.5 million

american citizens living in puerto rico. now, i know proponents of the bill have argued supporting an amendment process would force puerto rico to default and have serious repercussions for its people, but they are simply mistaken. the truth is the legislation that we are considering will include a retroactive stay on litigation, meaning that any lawsuit filed before july 1 will be halted, and any judgments unenforceable. as a matter of fact, any lawsuits that take place or any judicial decisions that take place once the legislation is passed and signed by the president, it will be retroactive to december of last year. so that will be stopped. as the bill states, the stay bars -- quote -- the commencement or continuation of

suits to recover claims against puerto rico. it also bars -- quote -- enforcement of a judgment obtained before the enactment of the bill. in addition, section 362 of the bankruptcy code, which is incorporated by reference into this bill that we are considering, bars the -- quote -- enforcement of a judgment obtained before filing for bankruptcy once the board files a bankruptcy petition on puerto rico's behalf to restructure their debt. so even if this apocalyptic scenario that the proponents of the bill want to use to drive this bill through, if hedge funds win a judgment before a stay is enacted, that judgment cannot be enforced once the law is passed and once the debt adjustment plan is confirmed, the judgment can actually be discharged. the third circuit court of appeals which has jurisdiction

over puerto rico held in 2012 even an injunction is not a claim. any action to enforce an injunction is subject to the stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay. what does that basically mean? any action to enforce is subject to the stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay. so the stay is the legislation that we're passing. so all of the suggestion that we have to drive into a set of circumstances with a bad bill is not the reality. now, time is of the essence as it relates to congress acting swiftly, but we shouldn't allow a somewhat arbitrary deadline to force through a fundamentally flawed bill as the retroactive stay gives us the time to get it right. july 1 shouldn't be used as an excuse to abdicate our responsibility as united states

citizens. adoption of the motion to table that i will make later can still find a reasonable middle ground to truly help solve the crisis and the humanitarian catastrophe that awaits the people of puerto rico rather than simply ignore their sovereignty and choose the road to colonialism. so while help is getting dim, we still have one last opportunity to do right by the people of puerto rico. so i will intend to table a pending amendment in order to have the opportunity to replace that amendment if we succeed in going ahead and tabling it to get a vote on one of my amendments. and while that may seem a little bit confusing as a procedural vote, basically what i'm saying is if you vote for my motion to table, you're giving me an opportunity to have an amendment that i plan to offer in its place. now, the majority leader might try to, if we succeed, slip in

another amendment, but at the end of the day, we know the whole purpose of tabling is to offer an amendment to improve this legislation. and why must we improve this legislation? let me go through once again what's wrong with this law. this creates an oversight board. the board according to the house natural resources committee reports so it's not me saying this. it's the official document of the house of representatives that passed this bill. it says the board would have broad sovereign powers. sovereign powers means as if it has its total authority on its own. to effectively overrule decisions by puerto rico's legislature, governor and other public authorities. these are the people who are elected by the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico, united states citizens to determine their future. but, no, the board is going to overrule them and has the sovereign power to do so. secondly, the oversight board can effectively nullify.

nullify means end. any new laws or policies adopted by puerto rico that didn't conform in their view to requirements specified in the bill. nullify a sovereign government's opportunity to pass laws as elected by the people. the consent of the government, the essence of democracy. we're nullifying that. the control board as i call it because i'll speak to why it's control, not oversight, may -- these things speak to controls, not oversight. it says "may impose mandatory cuts on puerto rico's government and instrumentalities, a power far beyond that exercised by the control board established for the district of columbia." again from the house natural resources report, a power far beyond that which was established for the district of columbia. so it can say you know what? puerto rico, sorry.

we know you put your budget together. we know the legislature passed it. we know the governor signed it but we think you have to cut in these areas of education. you have to cut in these areas of health care. you have to cut in these areas of public safety. they have the power to decide mandmandatorily that these cutst take place. and with respect to the government of puerto rico and its instrumentalities which means subdivisions, it can make appropriate reductions in no nondebt expenditures. that's very important. so anything that are expenditures to pay the debt, their he held sac sack crow sen, can't be touched. this board can say this is where you're going to make the cuts. what are the nondebt expenditures? it's education and health care and public safety and senior citizens and everything we think about as a society, we protect the people of the society. it has sole discretion over the budget. the board shall determine in its

sole discretion, a phrase used nearly 30 times throughout the bill which means we're not defining what that means. sole discretion as a common sense. it means they themselves can determine what's appropriate whether each proposed budget is compliant with the applicable fiscal plan. it has the sole discretion to grant or deny restructuring. why are we even considering legislation? the whole purpose of our legislation is to give puerto rico a pathway to restructuring in the bankruptcy where the bankruptcy under federal laws would take over. but we create a series of problems to that restructuring. the oversight board certifies a plan of adjustment only if it determines in its sole discretion that is consistent with the applicable certified fiscal plan. again can be arbitrary and capricious. and this board that has no

reputation of puerto rico, it comes from the puerto rican people. it will have one person who either has their primary residence or their primary business in puerto rico, but they could have a primary business, not live there and make dictates about the people of puerto rico and this person doesn't come from the governor and legislature of puerto rico representing the puerto rican people. this board that has control over their entire life, their budgets, their fiscal plan, the ability to have mandatory cuts, the ability to impose all types of in essence what a governing body would do, this oversight board, seven people, unelected, unaccountable, guess who pays for them? puerto rico pays. within 30 days after the date of enactment, the territorial government shall dedicate a dedicated funding source, meaning a source only to pay for this, not subject to legislative

appropriations. and guess how much the estimate of that is? this is the congressional budget office. it says puerto rico is going to have to pay about $370 million for this control board. here's an island that doesn't have the money to meet some of the basic necessities that we've heard so eloquently talked about on both sides of the aisle, but we're going to impose another $370 million, at least as is estimated by the congressional budget office for a control board that they have no say over. and they have no oversight over the control board. neither the governor nor the legislature can exercise any control, supervision, oversight but they get to pay the $370 million and they have to live with all the dictates of the control board, even though they don't have representation. and to further make sure that the control board is even more omnipotent, they put in a no liability clause. the oversight board, its members and its employees shall not be liable for my obligation or any claim against the oversight board or its members or employ

employees or the territorial government resulting from actions taken to carry out this act. so they have absolute immunity. wow. wouldn't we all like to have that? so my amendment is targeted to improve the most egregious flaws of this legislation. my amendment would ensure that the people of puerto rico have a voice in their future. the current legislation denies the puerto rican people any, any representation on a board that effectively replaces the decision making powers of the legislative and executive branches of their democratically elected government. and it imposes on the board on puerto rico without ever consulting the people of puerto rico. my amendment makes two critical changes to protect puerto rico's sovereignty and democratic rights. under my amendment if we got to it through the motion to table,

puerto rico would decide for itself whether it will access restructuring and accept the control board thus preserving the people's voice in the process. second, my amendment adds two additional voting members to the board chosen by the elected representatives of the people of puerto rico. these two additional members would be chosen by the president from a list of four candidates submitted by the governor of puerto rico with the advice and consent of the legislature of puerto rico. republicans will still appoint the majority of members from an ideological perspective. now, i personally believe that all the members of the board should be chosen by the people of puerto rico or their elected representatives, but i want to be reasonable and open to compromise, which is why my amendment only requires two members of a nine-member board to be chosen by puerto rico. certainly we can all agree that the people who will have to deal with all of the consequences of this board's decision should have some say who is -- as to

who is making the decisions. my amendment would also protect senior citizens and avoid an increase in elderly poverty. but promesa currently includes a vague and undefined requirement to provide adequate funding for public health -- public pension systems. our amendment would ensure that senior retirees and pensioners are protected from the whims of the control board. after all, retirees in puerto rico who spent 30 years serving the island as police officers, firefighter, teachers and nurses, they didn't have any choice but to participate in the pension plan. it was mandatory. unlike end funds who are able to pick and choose what investments to make and often bought bonds at pennies on the dollar, public servants had to participate in the pension system. they had no way of knowing that their nest egg which they worked their entire lives for was at risk of being taken away.

they didn't contribute to the fiscal problems facing puerto rico. they didn't borrow too much or fail to makage contributions to the funds so why should they lose their retirement funds? beside the fundamental flaws with the control board and failure to provide critical protections for seniors and retirees, this bill also fails to provide a clear pathway to restructuring which is the whole purpose of this legislation and this debate to begin with. the unelected control board created in this bill will have the ultimate authority to decide whether puerto rico's debts are even worthy of restructuring. so let's not fool your selves in believing it's a -- ourselves believing it's a sure thing that this gives the island the ability to restructure its debts. the bill lists four gate keeping requirements before any restructuring can occur. it must have engaged in good-faith efforts to reach a consensual agreement with creditors. it must establish a system to

develop and make public timely audited financial reports. it must adopt a fiscal plan approved by the board. but even if puerto rico meets and fulfills these requirements, there is still an additional even higher hurdle it must access -- it must hurdle in order to access restructuring. instead the fourth gate keeping requirement in the promesa legislation requires a supermajority of 5-2 vote by the control board in order for any of the island's debts to be restructured. that means when you call for a supermajority, it means a minority of that seven, three people, ideologically maybe opposed to the concept of restructuring or allowing puerto rico to get access to the bankruptcy court, could derail the island's attempts to achieve sustainable debt payments.

and without any authority to restructure its debt, all this legislation will do is take away the democratic rights of 3.5 million americans and leave the future to wishful thinking and a prayer that the crisis will somehow be resolved. instead of leaving this critical decision up to the whims of a minority of the board, my amendment would provide a clear path to restructuring by removing this arbitrary vote requirement. instead under my amendment the government or instrumentality would be able to restructure its debts once it completed the first three gate keeping requirements. when the main purpose of this bill is to give puerto rico the tools to restructure all of its debts, why would we leave this authority to chance? in addition to the undemocrattic control board and obfuscated path to restructuring, i have serious concerns that the bill would actually increase poverty

and out migration rather than stemming both. that's because it provides an exception to the federal minimum wage for younger workers, and it exempts the island from recently finalized overtime protections. at a time when we're seeking to increase workers' wages, promesa goes in the opposite direction and actually cuts them. it amazing me that the solution to get puerto rico's economy growing again is to ensure that workers make even less money. lowering people's wages is not a pro-growth strategy. it's a pro-migration strategy because anyone who lives on the island of puerto rico, a united states citizen, takes a jetblue flight to the united states, has the overtime protections, has the minimum wage protections, if they're a senior, have full medicare protections, if they're indigent have full medicaid

protections, have just about everything any of the united states citizen would have. so all these provisions would do is intensify out migration to the mainland where puerto ricans are eligible for everything i just discussed. this is why my amendment strips these offensive and unrelated riders out of this bill. so i would urge my colleagues to support these common sense improvements to the bill by voting for my motion to table. now, i've known for the past several weeks -- well, maybe months since i started coming to the floor in september of last year and then urgently several times in december of last year to say now is the time to act so we're not up against an emergency situation but, no, i guess the 3.5 million citizens of puerto rico did not deserve the type of attention and urgency that we should have given them as members of

congress. i've understood that for that period of time the deck was stacked against the people of puerto rico, but i'm not ready to give up just yet. put simply, promesa exacts a price far too high for relief that is far too uncertain. if we throw up our hands in the air, refuse to make changes to this wholly inferior bill which we can protect by the retro active nature that we have already put in the legislation to stay any judgments, we will cast a dark shadow on the future of puerto rico. a vote against tabling my motion, against tabling the pending amendment is a vote to disenfranchise 3.5 million americans. it's a vote to authorize an unelected and all powerful control board that could close schools, shutter hospitals, cut senior citizen pensions to the bone. a vote to force puerto rico without their say to go $370

million further in debt to pay for this omnipotent control board which they don't even want, a vote to cut the minimum wage down to $4.25 per hour for younger workers in puerto rico, a vote to make puerto ricans work long overtime hours without fair compensation or protection, a vote to jeopardize collective bargaining agreements, a vote to cut worker benefits and privatize inherently government functions, a vote that plays well healed hedge funds and creditors ahead of the people, a vote to give the board the power to sell off and commercialize natural treasures that belong to the people of puerto rico, and at its worse, it's a vote to authorize an unelected, unchecked, and all powerful control board to determine puerto rico's destiny for a generation or more.

and let be clear, the people of puerto rico find this board to be offensive and disrespectful. in fact, according to a recent poll commissioned by puerto rico's largest newspaper, 69% of all respondents opposed -- 69% opposed the promesa bill, the bill that we're voting on today, while 54% opposed the very idea of an oversight board. and their concerns are validated by the nonpartisan congressional budget office, which, as i said earlier, says that the board has broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by puerto rico's legislature, governor, and other public authorities. it can nullify any new laws or policies adopted by puerto rico that did not conform to rurmts specified - in the bill.

the board may impose mandatory cuts on puerto rico's government and instrumentalities in its sole discretion as the bill cites 29 times, using the superpowers in this bill to make mandatory budget cuts that harm the people of puerto rico, but there is nothing anybody from puerto rico can do about it. and these powers aren't limited to just budget and fiscal policy. the bill states in section 0205, the congress board can submit recommendations to the governor on a wide range of issues, including how puerto rico organizes its government, how they meet pension obligations, what services the government delivers, how they determine labor and wage performance standards, how puerto rico's laws affect the government and perhaps most egregiousously, the control board can submit recommendations on the privatization and commercialization of entities within the government itself. and while this section calls these comments "recommendations," another section allows the board to -- quote -- "adopt appropriate

recommendations submitted by the oversight board under section 205." so in essence they can adopt the very essence of what they say is a recommendation. so the board can decide a hold the fire sale and put puerto rican natural wonders on the block for the highest bidder. is that what the people of puerto rico want? is that what we want? this legislation puts balanced budgets and untested ideology ahead of the health, safety, and well-being of families and children similar to what happened in flint. without their voices represented on the control board, there is nothing that the people of puerto rico will be able to do. the fact that the puerto rican people will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action they decide is clearly blatant neocolonialism. i'm afraid we're opening the floodgates for puerto rico to become a laboratory for

right-wing economic policies. puerto rico deserves much more than to be the unwilling host of untested experiments in austerity. now, i'm not advocating to completely remove all oversight powers. to the contrary, i support helping puerto rico make informed, prudent decisions that put it on the path to economic growth and solvency. but it's -- despite its name, the oversight board envugsed by this bill doesn't simply oversee; it directs, it commands, it controls. the control board has final say on the fiscal plan -- final say on the budget, veto laws, contracts, rules, regulations, executive orders, can even mandate across-the-board budget cuts with no regard to the impact on the people. so mark my words, if we don't seize this opportunity to address this crisis in a meaningful way, we will be right back here in a year from now picking up the pieces. so while it's absolutely clear

that we need to act and act decisively and expediently -- the presiding officer: the senator has consumed 25 minutes. mr. menendez: thank the chair. so while it's absolutely clear that we need to act and act decisively and expediently to help our fellow citizens, united states citizens in puerto rico, just as importantly, we need to get it right. working together and helping each other in a time of need is what this exon is all about. when a hurricane hits the gulf coast or a tornado ravages the midwest or we've seen wildfires in the west or we see what happened in west virginia, i don't stand heard and ask how my constituents in new jersey were affected. rather, i stand with my fellow americans and fight to provide relief, regardless of what state or territory they are from. so it seems to me there's a reason we call this country "the united states of america."

and united states citizens who enjoy the privilege of calling america home. the 3.5 million united states citizens in puerto rico are also part of that american -- great american people. as i have outlined, i have an amendment to make reasonable and targeted improvements to this legislation so that workers can get the retirement they deserve. the people of puerto rico are protected from egregious attacks on their pay. the island has unimpeded access to restructure its debt, and, most importantly, that the people of puerto rico have a say in their future, the consent of the governed, the very essence of what democracy is all about. so, mr. president, i move to table the motion to concur with amendment number 4865, and i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. menendez: mr. president,

with that, i reserve the balance of my time, and -- i reserve the balance of my time, and i yield the floor. ms. heitcamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that kelley beau, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges during the duration of today's session in the senate. the presiding officer:, woo. ms. heitcamp: i also ask unanimous consent to display a rely calf a wheel boater that is produced in north dakota. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitcamp: thank you, mr. president. it may seem like an odd request, but it actually has a purpose, because it reflects literally hundreds of jobs in my state, really hundreds of jobs across the country. gunge 30 will be an -- june 30 will be an anniversary, an

anniversary that is really not worthy of celebration. that is that it's an anniversary of when we literally shut down the export-import bank and made it unable to function for the first time in its 80-year history. now, that may not seem like a lot and may not seem like it's something that we should be very, very concerned about, but i can tell you that workers across our country -- workers who work in manufacturing, individuals whose livelihood depends on exports from our country -- know the impact today of this action or inaction. so despite the fact that congress reauthorized the agency six months ago, the ex-im bank has been hamstrung from supporting american jobs and businesses because there isn't a quorum on the ex-im bank.

for decades, the export-import bank has helped level the playing field for american businesses and american workers, and it's past time for politics to stop -- to stop dictating whether in fact the bank can do its job. the current nominee to the ex-im bank board, the nominee that would in fact provide a quorum, was nominated not by a liberal democrat, not by the president, but instead was the republican nominee to the ex-im bank board. his name is mark mcwatters. his nomination is currently pending in the senate banking committee. and the senate banking committee chairman has told us in no uncertain terms, he will not bring up the mcwatters vote in the committee because of his own personal opposition to the ex-im bank. again, despite the fact that 64 -- 64 republican and democratic senators, along with 70% of the

people -- of the reading of the amendments in the -- of the representatives in the house of representatives voted last year to reauthorize the ex-im bank. if we do not take this step, if we do not in fact get the bank up and running, we will continue to do what we've been talking about, which is pink slipping the american manufacturing workers. so we're here today to recommend that this body take action so that no more workers, no more manufacturing -- hardworking americans are prevented from doing their job and are given pink slips and laid off. so when you look at where we were last year and the challenges that we had, we had a whole out debate, and a lot of people say there wasn't a debate on this, we didn't get a chance to air our grievances. that is strictly engine sense. we fought -- that is strictly

nonsense. we fought this issue very hard. had many, many floor debates and discussions about this. and at the end of the day, the vast majority of this body voted to reauthorize and put the ex-im bank back to work. so why are we in the spot that we are today? because we cannot do any credit over $10 million without approval of a bank board. cannot be done unilaterally. and, as a result, many, many credits -- in fact, $2 billion worth of activity is pending in the pipeline at the ex-im bank. so when you look at many of the big companies across this country, a lot of times people will say, we will -- well, that's just about this company or that company, fill in whatever big-name corporation you want to. but the bottom line is, this isn't just about those companies. it's about a supply chain that goes all the way down to states as small as north dakota.

and so if you look at boeing, for instance, and you look at what the impact is on boeing and what that means for our producers, boeing currently has 16 suppliers in north dakota, which will lose out -- not just could lose out but will lose out -- if boeing doesn't get enough support from the ex-im bank to sustain its operations and to continue to produce its planes with american workers. today i bring this wheel loader to the floor of the senate, and i do that because this demonstrates the affect that this lack of activity on this nomination will have on case newholland in my state. case newholland has a dealer in new jersey called hoffman equipments that has secured an $80 million deal with the country of cameroon. the only way cameroon can afford this deal is that they use ex-im

financing. if the deal doesn't go through, facilities in three states will lose. so who are those? take today north dakota, where we produce these wheel loaders in fargo. you know, the great irony of this is, as we have been challenged with our agricultural economy and ag manufacturing, guess what? ag manufacturing is down. in part because we stimulated a lot of purchases back when the economy was good in farm country. but i will tell you that 70 people just in the last couple weeks have been laid off at case in fargo. think of what's going to happen if we lose this sale. think of what will happen to workers in iowa if they lose the sale for the backhoes that are produced in iowa by case. think about what's going to happen in kansas if we lose the skid steer portion of that cameroon sale. i will tell you, every day we are losing jobs because of the

inability for the ex-im bank to do its job in promoting and guaranteeing that american-manufactured products find their way into the global marketplace. g.e. announced in june that it will receive financing from the french export credit agency to support exports that will be made in france now rather than the united states, and so the french credit export agency will be providing an additional line of credit for gas turbines that will be produced not in the united states but will be produced in france and exported to countries such as saudi arabia, mexico, and brazil. as a result, g.e. will invest $40 million in the french economy instead of investing d 40 million -- $40 million in the american economy. you know what that means? that means when you look at these jobs -- just translate $40 million, and we recognize a lot

of that is input costs. but one of the major input costs in all of this is american workers. how can we stand by and let this happen? how can we stand by and not fight for these jobs for american manufacturers? there is no way we can come to the floor and say, we're for the american worker and not be for the export-import bank. no way can we come to the floor and say we're for competition, global competition that will put the best products into the marketplace which are american products and not move the bank forward. and so i'm going to yield to my friend from the state of washington, or yield to my friend from the great state of iowa. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i want to ask the senator from north dakota a question if i could. i see she's been out here with an actual display.

it's quite amazing that we have to go to this level to bring up an issue about jobs in our economy. but i admire the dedication of the senator from north dakota saying how important it is because we're about to go home for another summer recess here in a few weeks, and everybody thought last year we were passing legislation thatches going to secure america's place in a global economy by making sure that products we make could be sold in overseas markets. so the secret is, though, that there are now 30 transactions worth more than $20 billion that aren't getting done simply because one senator refuses to let a nominee out of the committee. so one senator is holding up the sale of that replica of a product that you have on your desk. they're holding up the sale of airplanes. they're holding up the sale of other products all because they don't want to have a functioning

board. we're here to ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help us break this logjam so that we can sell export products. but i was kaoer kwrus to ask -- i was curious to ask the senator from north dakota because you were mentioning how these transactions are happening now. that is that people are deciding to move. i just for the record want to submit a "new york times" article that was called "a single senator stymies the export-import bank." and in it it talks about two weeks ago g.e. making an announcement they were going to expand manufacturing in france rather than south carolina, and how they were investing in the czech republic instead of in texas, and that jobs in south carolina, maine, and new york were also getting transferred to other countries. so the whole point of the export credit agency is to give u.s.

manufacturers credit. my point is your products are agriculture-based, and yet people, i think, think that they can get done. yet, they're not getting done because they are a growing world. so if you could explain to me, these aren't manufacturing products here -- i'm sorry. they aren't agriculture manufacturing products. but you're saying, i guess, with your display, that we're now starting to see large-scale u.s. manufacturing products out of agriculture that also are not getting credit financing? ms. heitkamp: absolutely. if we do not move with haste, if we do not supply on time, we won't get -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota's time has expired. ms. cantwell: mr. president, do i have time reserved in the consent agreement? the presiding officer: the senator from washington has ten minutes. ms. cantwell: i yield whatever time for our discussion to continue of that ten minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota.

ms. heitkamp: why i think it is absolutely critically important to make this point not just about what we produce, but who produces it is because at the end of the day 95% of all potential consumers in america do not live in this country, and america still remains the best and most treasured producer of quality equipment, construction equipment in the world. these are jobs that have helped my manufacturing sector that is dependent on agriculture, which has huge challenges right now. so if you can't produce tractors that farmers are going to buy, we can produce construction equipment that everyone can buy to build infrastructure in their countries. and so a narrow view, a narrow view even in this congress, 67 senators voted to open up the

export-import bank. over 70% of the house of representatives said this is nonsense. let's open up the export-import bank. but yet we're unable to do it because credits over $10 million cannot be moved forward without the approval of a bank, board, and a bank board can't operate without a quorum. that's the bottom line. ms. cantwell: mr. president, if i could ask the senator from north dakota one more question because i know -- i want to make sure she continues to make her points and i know we have a colleague that's also waiting. aren't we here right now today to ask our colleagues that when we come back after july 4, that we have two weeks, let's dedicate ourselves? it's not every day the united states senate can be involved in an activity that actually creates so much economic value, $20 billion in job creation. but we could get that done. so we're here asking our colleagues to step up and help

us resolve this issue in whatever way possible. you don't want to let a nominee out of committee because you made a promise to somebody, fine. let's put language somewhere in a product that's moving. we can look at the f.a.a. bill, we can look at anything. to go home through the recess through the august month leaving those farmers without the economic closure to a deal that's been inked, a sale that's been made to jobs that have been created all because you won't let somebody have an operating majority on a board seems like a very drastic step. is that why you are here to ask our colleagues to step up to the plate and help us resolve this before the july 15 recess? ms. heitkamp: thank you, senator cantwell. that's exactly why i'm here. but i'm also here to ask our colleagues to be empathetic, to actually think about what that would feel like if you were employed in a gas turbine business in one of the carolinas and that business went to france

because we couldn't figure out how to open up the bank. how would you feel? that's why i think it's so important to not reflect just on our trade deficit and just on the imperative of building our manufacturing base and our export base, which if that's not enough economic argument for you, let's look at the microargument. let's look at what's happening to american families because we aren't getting our job done here. and so i said it before, i don't go to bed worrying about the executives at g.e. or boeing because guess what? they have options. and they're already exercising those options, and those options are to move to canada. those options are to move to france. that american worker, guess what? they're not moving to france to take those jobs. that american worker is getting a pink slip, and that's wrong. that's wrong in so many ways. and so thank you, senator cantwell, for your steadfast and

absolute commitment to opening up the bank. i think everybody should have a moment of personal reflection not just on the economics of this, but on the impact that this is having on so many, literally thousands of american families. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to share with my colleagues my concerns about the puerto rico legislation that we're considering. i've been involved with this issue for quite awhile now. just this past december i chaired a hearing in the judiciary committee to examine the root cause of puerto rico's fiscal problems. at the hearing we learned that even when puerto rico's economy took a downturn, government spending did not take the same downturn. instead of making difficult decisions to cut spending and to balance its budget, the

government kept borrowing to finance its operations. and what did they borrow? they used tax-exempt bonds to roll over debt. as a result, puerto rico now has one of the largest government deficits in the united states, and debt, we're told, isn't payable and must be restructured. as many of you have know, a wide array of investors own puerto rico bonds, which are issued by roughly 17 different entities in puerto rico. according to bloomberg, puerto ricans themselves hold $20 billion of debt. and nearly 60% of puerto rico's debt is held largely in individual retirement accounts and 401(k)s of very regular folks throughout the united

states. in fact, over 17,000 iowans are invested in mutual funds containing at least one type of puerto rican bonds. now these folks are not vultures. they're middle-class taxpayers who invested their hard-earned money into one of the many tax-exempt municipal bond funds containing puerto rican bonds. why should they be forced by congress to bail out prosecute's government and pension obligations? the answer is quite clear. they should not be forced to do that. but unfortunately, there's no guarantee in this legislation that these hardworking folks' investments, whether in iowa or elsewhere, won't be haircut in

order to fund pension obligations or christmas bonuses for public workers in puerto rico. now this didn't have to be the case. at our december hearing, i stated two principles that have guided me as this issue has progressed through the congress. the first principle, any inclusion of debt restructuring or bankruptcy should occur only tep end of the did he at the -- only at the end of the line as a tool of last resort. otherwise the control board will face two great of a temptation to use bankruptcy to balance the budget as opposed to implementing all available means to increase and collect revenues while reducing expenses within the government. the second principle, it would

be a bad idea for congress to prevent puerto rico to walk away from its constitutional debt obligations through what some call an unprecedented superchapter 9 bankruptcy. in fact, i received a letter from governor branstad of my state of iowa stating that granting puerto rico such authority -- quote -- "would set a dangerous precedent and likely raise the borrowing costs for states and municipalities across the nation which would reduce our ability to invest in vital services." and he wrote investor confidence in the whole notion of full faith and credit debt. unfortunately the house bill fails to meet the two principles i've outlined about. first, the bill operates under the presumption that the only way to balance the budget is to

restructure debt. this means that the oversight board will have more flexibility to avoid making difficult fiscal reforms to balance the budget because the debt can simply be restructured. in fact, one of the oversight board' first responsibilities is to create a fiscal plan that provides adequate funding for public pension systems. and includes a debt sustainability analysis. neither of these terms are defined. the oversight board may very well read those terms as permitting full funding of pensions while only funding sustainable levels of debt service. not surprisingly this is exactly

what the obama administration seeks to accomplish. protecting pensions at the expense of other retirees. the effect of this bill has for retirees in iowa and elsewhere is that they must place their trust in an oversight board to act courageously and make hard decisions lest they find themselves bailing out puerto rico's government when they take a haircut. second, no matter what the house bill calls it, title 3 of that bill, the debt restructuring authority, allows for the restructuring of debt that is issued or guaranteed by puerto rico. and that is chapter 9. investors and the municipal bond market have treated puerto rico

like a state, granting puerto rico the authority to restructure state-like obligations will be viewed as a very dangerous precedent for giving a state similar authority. now, of course, no state is going to ask to be covered by the house bill. rather, they'll say, if a territory can receive unprecedented authority from the congress, then why shouldn't a state do that? can't you imagine illinois coming here and asking that question? moreover, by creating this new authority, congress has invited material litigation risk. worst skas