mr. toomey. the senate will be in order. mr. toomey: madam president?ng officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. there's two things we know about reauthorizing ex-im bank. we know our taxpayers are subject to a risk for which they're not fairly compensated in the sense that ex-im necessarily systematically underprices the risk. that's precisely why a borrower goes to them. the other thing we know is it's unfair to a domestic competitor that can't obtain the financing at a same rate that a foreign company can. we're told that we should do this anyway because everyone else does it, because all of our competitors around the world, they subsidize their exports. so, madam president, i would suggest the logical conclusion here is we should work to phase out export subsidies all around the world. that's what this amendment does. it reauthorizes ex-im. it lifts the limit of the borrowing cap but makes it contingent on the administration beginning a process of negotiating a phaseout of export subsidies and makes the second in

mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak on the budget resolution that i've introduced and on which we will have a vote, at least on a motion to proceed, later today. but i want to start with underscoring the magnitude of the challenge that we face. we have a full-blown crisis that awaits us. it could arrive at any moment virtually if we don't change the course we're on. the deficit that we have in 2012, $1.3 trillion, fourth consecutive year with the deficit of over a trillion dollars. we are now routinely running deficits that are 7%, 8%, 9% of g.d.p. and, of course, every year that you run a deficit, the excess of spending over the tax revenue has to be funded by more borrowing. and so we have the mounting dealt -- mounting debt that is now really at stunning levels for much of the post-war era, after the big repayment of debt after world war ii, the national debt fluctuated somewhere around 40% of our total economic output. today our total -- our actual debt held by the public is 73%. of our total economi

mr. chairman. >> senator toomey. >> thank you both for being here. i'd like to follow up on a discussion that chairman gensler has been touching on but i'm a little confused about. and that is your views on the permissibility of hedging in the aggregate. i young just used the expression just a moment ago about portfolio hedging tied to specific positions. so i'm wondering if you could clarify that. if you tie hedges to individual specific positions on a one off basis, and that is obviously the opposite of hedging an aggregate portfolio that has some cumulative net. so is it your view that it is and will continue to be permissible as well as cost effective to manage interest rate and currency and credit risks in the aggregate in these portfolios rather than limiting it to a one off individual basis? >> i think congress actually addressed themselves to this and said that it had to be tied to the specific risk of either individual or aggregate positions. but tied to the specific risk of some aggregate positions, to answer -- but it's got to be tied to -

toomey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the commissioners as well for being here today. the first question may as well to go to chairman for this. the authority that the commission claims for the passage of the open internet order doesn't rest on title two of the telecommunications act of the communications act at all, right? >> correct. >> if the court strikes down the validity of this order, do you support reclassifying broad band as a telecommunication service under title two? >> the framework is working. it's widely supported. it's led to predictability and service in the industry. i hope the court doesn't strike it down. if it does, i hope congress will fill the gap immediately and make it clear that we have the authority. this is a case where through a lot of hard work we were able to take a big dispute, increase certainty and predictability, and it's important that it continues. >> i know that's your view. you know it's not shared universally to say the least. and neither of us knows what the court will do. but there's certainly the same possibility that they coul

toomey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here. i would like to follow up on discussion that chairman gensler has been touching on. i think think you just used the expression about portfolio hedging tied to specific decisions. i'm wondering if you could clarify that. if you tie hedges to individual specific positions on a one off basis. that is obviously the opposite of hedging a portfolio with risk. so my question is is it your view that it is and will continue to be permissible as well as cost effective to manage interest rate and currency and risk in the aggregate in the portfolios, rather than limiting to a one-op individual basis. >> i think congress addressed themselveses to this and said that it had to be tied to the specific risk of either individual or aggregate positions. but tied to the specific risks of some aggregate positions to answer. >> okay -- >> but it has to be tied to something. >> so for instance the aggregate interest rate. >> that may have 170 bonds on it. >> so you could measure that and quantify that and t

. >> i'm going to call now on senator toomey, senator globuchar and senator cantwell should she return. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank all the commissioners as well for being here today. ed first question that might go to the chairman for this. the passage of the internet order doesn't rest on title 22 of the communications act at all, right? >> correct. >> if the court strikes down the validity of this order, do you support reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under that app, under title two? >>ed framework with we've adopted is working. it's widely supported. i hope the court doesn't strike it down, if it does, i hope congress will fill the gap immediately and make it clear we have the authority. this is a case where through a lot of hard work, we were able to take a big radioactive dispute, increase certainty and pregiktability and create a climate and it's important that continue. >> i know that's your view, you know that's not shared universally here to say the least. neither of us knows what the court is going to do. there's a distinct possibility they could strik

mr. chairman. i appreciate it. i certainly appreciate this hearing. and i think this hearing can help as a couple of prior hearings have. i think the record is already fairly clear, senator toomey, if i may say that a lot of the questions you've raised have actually been addressed in those hearings and i think there's been a pretty powerful showing with respect to both the ability to have a privacy standard as well as the need for the privacy standard without affecting those applications and the free access and all the other things you're talking about. and i think the record will reflect that. i'm delighted that we have the chair of the federal trade commission and one of the commissioners from the commission here with us today. and obviously i'm delighted to welcome my own brother, who carries either the burden or privilege of being so. but i'm glad that he's here today representing the commerce department. he's been working on this under two different secretaries now, as have many of us here on the committee. so i know that in his capacity as the general counsel together with the chair, they are going to set out today so the final findings of both the commerce department and

mr. pitts: unfortunately the medical device industry faces a huge setback starting next year. last week senator tumor and -- toomeyand i visited deb -- denver, pennsylvania, and we heard from a dozen device companies about how the new obamacare-created medical device tax will destroy jobs and stall research. this new $2.3 -- 2.3% tax is on all revenue, not just profits, meaning that even if a company is struggling to break even or losing money, they have to pay this hefty tax bill. this new tax is over and above the new user fees that they've agreed to pay. already some companies have cut back. yesterday we took a big step forward, but if this new tax becomes reality next year, we could still lose the edge on medical device equipment. it should be repealed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday was president harry truman's birthday. one of his quotes is particularly appropriate today. he said, the purpose of our society is to en

toomey and tom coburn. i'm only candidate in the country who all five are supporting. they need reinforcements and strong conservatives in the senate. jenna: very interesting i will start there with your opponent. mrook forward having you back. thank you very much. >> thank you. great to be with you. jenna: with us lieutenant governor david dewhurst. lieutenant governor, you heard a little bit what ted had to say there. start with the strong conservative point because some have described you as a moderate republican. and i'm wondering if you would describe yourself that way and what is a moderate republican? >> first of all that is all political spin by mr. cruz and his washington special interests who spent $6.5 million in negative ads against me. not one statement which is true other than they pronounced my name correctly. jenna lee, there is not a dime's difference between a governor rick perry's conservative record and mine. i've cut taxes in texas 51 times. i have every year cut spending by billions of dollars. $14 billion last year. i balanced five state budgets. i have led the fight against obamacare. i'm a lifelong conservative businessman. jenna: some point to that experience as a negativ

mr. chairman. i appreciate this hearing. and i think this hearing can help, as it prior hearing has. i think the record is clear, senator toomey, as i say, a lot of the questions you have raised have been addressed in those hearings, and i think that has been a powerful showing with respect to both the ability to have a privacy standard, as well as the need for the privacy standard. without affecting those applications of the free access or other things you're talking about. the record will reflect that. i'm delighted that we have the chair of the federal trade commission and one of the commissioners from the commission here with us today. obviously, i am delighted to welcome my own brother carrying the burden of privilege, and i'm glad that he's here today, representing the commerce department. he has been working under two different secretaries now as have many of us on the committee. i know that the council with the chair, they are going to set out today for the final findings of both the commerce department and federal trade commission. with respect to this question. it is not unimportant, i think, that both the commerce d