[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 155 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7441-S7445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CYBERSECURITY INFORMATION SHARING ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                      The Budget and Debt Ceiling

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the 
budget standoff we are in and the looming debt ceiling issue we are 
facing. I wish to address this briefly. There will be more to say about 
this in the near future.
  The administration tells us that November 3 is the date after which 
the extraordinary measures they have been taking run out, and they say 
that on that date, they will need to start borrowing more money. As we 
know, we have temporary legislation that funds the government through 
December 11, I think it is, after which we have not yet resolved how we 
keep the government operating. I would like to address this a little 
bit.
  First of all, the fundamental problem we have on the debt ceiling 
increase is we are spending too much money. We are running annual 
deficits, and we have to borrow money to make up the shortfall. That is 
what is happening. That is why we reached the debt ceiling, and that is 
why and the administration wants to borrow more. What is particularly 
problematic is the President's position that we ought to increase the 
debt ceiling and allow him to borrow a lot more money without even so 
much as having a discussion on--much less actually addressing--the 
gross fiscal mismanagement that is requiring us to borrow all of this 
money in the first place.

  Let's go back to a recent occasion in which we had this debate. In 
2011, we reached the debt limit and had a big debate about how we 
should proceed, and what happened was Congress insisted on--and the 
President resisted but eventually agreed to--some very modest spending 
cuts. They established caps, or limits, on discretionary spending, 
which consist of 37 to 38 percent of all Federal spending that Congress 
controls through the annual appropriations process.
  So some caps were put in place, and the idea was that for every 
dollar that we raised the debt ceiling, or for every new dollar of debt 
we would impose on the American people, we would at least cut one 
dollar of spending over the next 10 years, so that even though we were 
making a bad situation with our debt load worse by increasing the debt, 
we would at least be improving the underlying dynamic by diminishing 
the total spending so that in the future our deficits would be smaller. 
At least that was the idea.
  If you take a look, there was actually a lot of progress in the 
category of Federal spending--the discretionary spending. We have a 
graph that shows the increase in Federal spending. This red line shows 
a huge surge that happened when the President insisted on that

[[Page S7442]]

massive stimulus spending bill. That is the big spike. It dropped off a 
little bit because that single, individual gargantuan bill wasn't 
replicated the next year. Then, a short time thereafter, we reached 
this agreement with the President where Congress said: Mr. President, 
you get the debt ceiling increase, but in return for that, let's reduce 
our discretionary spending over time, and then we will allow it to grow 
at the rate of inflation after a certain number of years. That was the 
nature of the agreement. The idea was to address the underlying problem 
of overspending that is requiring all of this debt.
  As this chart demonstrates, this black line shows where we are today. 
We have made some progress. There is a gradual, modest decline. This is 
the big surge that came from that gigantic stimulus bill, but after 
that, there is a gradual, steady, modest decline, so that in this 
category of discretionary spending--as I said, almost 40 percent of the 
Federal budget--we actually limited that. It is the first time, that I 
am aware of, in years--maybe even decades--when we have had several 
consecutive years in which the Federal Government has actually spent 
less each year than the year before in discretionary spending.
  By way of full disclosure, I voted against this overall agreement 
because I knew then, as I know now, that while this makes some 
progress, it doesn't solve the underlying problem. One could argue that 
it moves in the right direction, but it does not fix the huge debt 
problem that we have, and this chart illustrates that.
  This chart shows that in recent years we have had a slight decline in 
the size of our deficits. If we go back further, we would see that the 
deficits were even higher earlier. We have made some progress. The 
annual deficit, which is the red line, is corresponding to each year 
since 2014. We can see that it has come down a little bit. This year 
the deficit will be $426 billion. It is still too big of a number, but 
it is less than it was in recent years.
  Here is the problem: There are people around this town who talk as 
though we have this problem solved. A few years ago, the deficit was $1 
trillion, and today it is $426 billion; so everything is OK. Take a 
look at where this line is going. This isn't OK. This isn't 100 years 
from now. This is 5 years from now. This is 10 years from now. What is 
happening is our deficits are going to explode.
  This isn't just my projection. This is the Congressional Budget 
Office, the nonpartisan CBO. By the way, their numbers are wildly 
optimistic. I will give three examples of assumptions they make, and 
you can judge whether you think these are reasonable assumptions or 
not.
  First of all, as to the whole package of tax extenders, the 
individual tax cuts that we renew every year, they assume that we 
stopped renewing them and so there will be this surge of revenue that 
will come into the Federal Government every year thereafter, and that 
is all baked into these numbers. They also assume that we are going to 
stick to the spending caps that I illustrated in the previous chart. In 
this body we all know that negotiations are underway right now to bust 
those spending caps, and the President is insisting on it.
  In fact, the President has gone so far as to say that he is vetoing 
the National Defense Authorization Act in part because we haven't yet 
agreed to bust the caps on nondefense spending. Despite that, these 
numbers assume that the caps are all complied with. Finally, the 
Congressional Budget Office makes extremely optimistic assumptions, in 
my view, about economic growth going forward in the next several years, 
and that means they are making optimistic assumptions about how much 
revenue the Federal Government is going to be taking in. Despite that, 
as we can see, deficits are set to explode, and when deficits explode, 
the corresponding debt total goes right along with it.
  This is our debt. This is the gross Federal debt, and the gross 
Federal debt is exactly a function of how much we borrow every year. 
The annual deficit is the shortfall between revenue and spending, and 
we make up the shortfall by going out and borrowing, and that adds to 
the borrowing from previous years, and the total is our debt.
  If we go back to 1980, it was practically zero. The gross Federal 
debt was a very modest number. Now it is about $18 trillion, and it is 
set to just continue rising. This is totally unsustainable. No country 
has been able to rack up debt on this scale and have it end well. It 
doesn't end well.
  My point this afternoon is really a simple one. We have a choice 
before us. We are up against the debt limit, and the President says: 
Just give me more debt, and I don't even want to have a conversation 
about the underlying cause or what we might do differently to solve 
this issue. At the same time, they are saying: By the way, let's 
increase the rate at which we rack up this debt by busting the spending 
caps and abandoning the one element of spending discipline that we 
have been able to achieve in this town in I don't know how many years.

  I think most Republicans--and I know this Republican Senator--think 
it would be a very bad idea to just rack up even more debt and do 
nothing at all about the underlying cause of it and bust the spending 
caps without finding some offsetting way to save money in other places.
  By the way, when President Obama was Senator Obama, he thought it was 
a bad idea then too. In 2006, he said:

       The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's 
     debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing 
     America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.

  Two years later, then-Senator Obama said in 2008: ``Adding $4 
trillion in debt is irresponsible, it's unpatriotic.''
  Isn't it a little bit ironic that under President Obama we added $8 
trillion in debt and now he wants more? He wants more, and as I said 
before, his insistence is that we can't even have a discussion about 
dealing with the underlying problems. It is not clear to me why this 
President should be one of the only Presidents, if not the only 
President, who gets a debt ceiling increase without even having a 
conversation about underlying reforms.
  In 1984, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was a major, important budget deal 
that was done in the context of a debt ceiling increase.
  In 1990, the Budget Enforcement Act imposed some spending discipline 
in return for a debt ceiling increase.
  In 1997, we had the Balanced Budget Act, which actually achieved a 
balanced budget within a short period of time. That came up in the 
context of a debt ceiling debate.
  In 2011, as I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, we 
established spending caps because we wanted to do something about the 
underlying problem at the same time we increased the debt ceiling. 
Unfortunately, as I said, the administration seems unwilling to even 
have the discussion.
  There are two charges that I hear from this administration which are 
completely untrue, and I want to dispel this. One is this notion that I 
hear all the time, that raising the debt limit merely enables us to pay 
the bills that have already been incurred. They tell us how 
irresponsible we are for not raising the debt limit. After all, these 
bills have already been incurred. That is nonsense. It is completely 
untrue. However many times they repeat it doesn't make it true.
  I can prove it very simply. If we started running balanced budgets 
tomorrow and kept running balanced budgets, we would never need to 
borrow any more money. It is as simple as that. If we didn't spend any 
more than we took in, we wouldn't need to borrow more money, and we 
wouldn't need to increase the debt limit.
  The precise reason you need to raise the debt limit is because you 
need to borrow more money because you intend to spend more than you are 
taking in. That is what the President is planning. That is what he 
wants to do. That is what his budget calls for. We haven't committed to 
any spending going forward. We don't even have an appropriations bill. 
We don't have an omnibus. We don't have a CR. We haven't done that yet. 
How can it be that this is paying for bills that have already been 
incurred? It is not.
  The second issue is that if we don't raise the debt ceiling by 
November 3, it is implied--they don't say it this way--that we will 
have a devastating and disruptive default in the markets and will not 
be able to pay our Treasury debts. That is ridiculous. It is never 
going to happen.

[[Page S7443]]

  Ninety percent of all the money the government is going to spend 
comes in the door in the form of taxes. It is the other 10 percent that 
is the shortfall that we have to go out and borrow. Ninety percent of 
everything that the government is going to spend comes in the form of 
taxes. You know how much goes out in debt service? About 7 percent. For 
every $1 of government spending about 7 cents is service on our debt at 
the moment, and 90 cents comes in from taxes. And you are going to 
default on the debt? You would have to willfully choose to do that, and 
I don't think even this administration would do that.
  I will conclude by saying that I hate the idea of raising the debt 
ceiling because we already have too much debt, but I understand that it 
would be very difficult and not realistic to get from where we are to a 
balanced budget overnight. I get that. So I would be willing to raise 
the debt ceiling, and I think the obvious thing to do here is to tie it 
to some structural reforms, even if they are just modest reforms. I 
know the President is not willing to consider the kind of architectural 
changes to the entitlement programs that it will take to actually solve 
the problem, but could we at least make progress on the problem? Could 
we at least go after the low-hanging fruit?
  There are dozens of reforms that would at least modestly improve this 
fiscal imbalance--the size of these annual deficits. We could have more 
means testing of Medicare. In other words, very wealthy Americans could 
contribute more to the cost of their Medicare. We could save tens of 
billions of dollars a year if we did that.
  We could reduce some of the subsidies that go to big corporations, 
including big agricultural corporations. We spend many tens of billions 
of dollars a year on corporate welfare. Why don't we wipe that out?
  We have green energy research, which is another way of forcing 
Americans to pay for inefficient production of electricity. We spend 
$18 billion over the next several years on that.
  Medical malpractice liability reform would save the Federal 
Government $50 billion a year. These are not my numbers. This is 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Maybe we could reduce the size of the Federal workforce. Between the 
Departments of Energy, Agriculture, and Commerce, we have 163,000 
employees. How much energy do they produce? How many crops do they 
grow? How much commerce do they really generate? I think we could 
probably do with a few less. There are hundreds of billions of dollars 
that could be saved.
  We could slow down the growth of the entitlement programs for future 
beneficiaries. These would be reasonable things. Many of these 
suggestions have had some level of support by the President at one time 
or another. I am not looking for something radical. I am looking to 
make some progress. But I think it is completely unreasonable for the 
President to insist that he simply have the opportunity to saddle us, 
our kids, and our grandkids with even more debt without even addressing 
the underlying problem that is causing us to rack up this debt in the 
first place.
  I will have more to say about this next week. I think this will not 
get resolved between now and then. When it does get resolved, one way 
or another, I hope we will find offsets to any spending increase that 
we incur relative to the levels we have agreed upon in the spending 
caps of the 2011 agreement. If the debt ceiling increase occurs, I hope 
it will occur in the context of some improvement to the underlying 
situation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                            Social Security

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some 
disappointing news. For only the third time in 40 years, Social 
Security beneficiaries will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or 
COLA, this year. This news will impact the nearly 60 million American 
retirees, dependent survivors, and disabled workers who rely on Social 
Security to make ends meet.
  Social Security is the most effective anti-poverty program in U.S. 
history. Without Social Security, about 44.1 percent of America's 
seniors would be living in poverty.
  In Hawaii, one in six residents depends on Social Security to help 
pay their bills and keep a roof over their heads. It is the only source 
of income for 25 percent of our seniors in Hawaii.
  We live in a world where wages just aren't rising fast enough, and 
real pensions are disappearing. More and more workers are working 
longer and harder with less to show for it when they retire.
  According to a 2014 Federal Reserve study, nearly 1 in 37 respondents 
reported having no retirement savings or pensions whatsoever, pointing 
out once again that Social Security benefits are essential to millions 
of working Americans and retirees.
  For many who are already struggling to make ends meet, Social 
Security is all they can rely on. Absent a COLA, too many beneficiaries 
will see no increase in their primary source of income, making it 
harder to afford basic necessities, especially medical care.
  One of my constituents from Wahiawa wrote to me recently and said:

       I find it incredible that there are people who actually 
     believe that Social Security is too generous. The average 
     Social Security benefit is a whopping $14,000 a year and 
     we've only seen an average 2 percent COLA over the past five 
     years. I can assure you my health care costs have far 
     exceeded that tiny increase.

  Another constituent from Honoka'a was more direct in her concerns. 
She wrote:

       I have worked very hard my entire life and have planned to 
     retire in a few years. My worry is that I will not have 
     enough money to live. I also may have to continue to work due 
     to this deficit. My question is what are you going to do 
     about it and what is your game plan? Year after year no one 
     has done anything about it and has passed it down to the next 
     person entering the Senate office or Congressional office. It 
     is a problem that must be addressed immediately. Please help 
     me and the rest of my baby boomer generation.

  Congress needs to listen to these voices and act to responsibly 
strengthen and expand Social Security before it becomes yet another 
fiscal crisis.
  That is why I introduced the Protecting and Preserving Social 
Security Act with Representative Deutch of Florida. Our bill does two 
key things that will help seniors now as well as help to ensure the 
strength of Social Security for decades to come.
  First, our bill would help Social Security recipients by having basic 
COLAs on a more accurate formula of what seniors actually purchase. 
This formula is called the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or 
CPI-E. The CPI-E more accurately recognizes the rising costs for 
seniors and gives them a benefit boost.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if we were using the 
CPI-E right now, seniors would be getting a 0.6 percent COLA increase 
in 2016. That is about $100 more in benefits for the average person on 
Social Security next year. And while small, seniors tell me that every 
bit counts. Changing to the CPI-E will mean increases in Social 
Security benefits to more accurately reflect the rising costs that our 
seniors experience.
  Second, our bill will pay for this benefit increase by requiring 
millionaires and billionaires to pay the same rate into the Social 
Security trust fund that everybody else pays. Few know that this year, 
once workers earned above $118,500, they stopped paying the payroll tax 
to support Social Security. In other words, Social Security 
contributions are capped for these high-wage earners.
  But most workers, as we know, earn far less than $118,500. So with 
every paycheck, all year, most workers pay into Social Security. This 
is not fair. It is not fair that millionaires and billionaires get a 
Social Security tax loophole.
  A corporate CEO could earn $118,500 in just one pay period and not 
contribute a single additional cent in payroll taxes for the rest of 
that year.
  Our bill would gradually phase out the cap on payments into the 
Social Security trust fund over 7 years. That way, whether you earn 
$50,000 or $500 million a year, you keep paying at a fair rate to 
support Social Security in every paycheck all year long.
  The Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act is a fair way to 
strengthen Social Security for decades to come, and it would give 
current seniors and beneficiaries a much-needed boost right away.
  Social Security is one of the cornerstones of the middle class and 
the lifeline for millions of seniors. We must do

[[Page S7444]]

all we can to protect and improve it for not just the current 
recipients but for those who will rely upon it in the future.
  This bill is supported by groups such as Social Security Works, the 
Strengthen Social Security Coalition, and the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in letting seniors in Hawaii and all 
across the country know that you are on their side by cosponsoring the 
Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                          9/11 Health Program

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, two days ago another victim of the 
September 11 attacks died in New York. He is the eleventh first 
responder to die since this year's anniversary of the attacks.
  His name was Sergeant Gerard Beyrodt. He served for decades in the 
New York Police Department. His entire career was devoted to serving 
his community and keeping the people around him safe, and when we were 
attacked on September 11, 2011, Sergeant Beyrodt didn't waver. He 
banded together with thousands of first responders from around the 
country--from every single State--and he rushed to Ground Zero to help.
  These heroic men and women ran into the burning towers to try to save 
anyone they could. When the Twin Towers collapsed, our first responders 
worked day and night to clear the pile, breathing in toxic, poisonous 
fumes the entire time. These men and women were heroes. They refused to 
abandon their community in a time of terrifying confusion and intense 
grief.
  But now, because of the poisonous fumes they were exposed to at 
Ground Zero, the burning metal and the toxic smoke, these men and women 
are sick. Many of them have cancer, and many are dying, and far too 
many have already died.
  More than 14 years later, the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, 
are still claiming American lives. In the 6 weeks since the most recent 
anniversary of the attacks, we have lost 11 more responders to diseases 
that can be traced directly back to the work at Ground Zero.
  I wish to take a moment to actually speak their names now: John P. 
McKee, Reginald Umpthery, Kevin Kelly, Thomas Zayas, Paul McCabe, Ed 
Goller, Joseph Fugel, Ronald Richards, John Cedo, Dennis Needles, and 
Gerard Beyrodt.
  The death toll is not going to stop rising. So what is Congress 
waiting for?
  The bill authorizing funding for the 
9/11 health program has already expired. It has expired. But these 9/
11-related illnesses never expire. Neither should their health care. 
More than 33,000 first responders and survivors have an illness or 
injury caused by the 9/11 attacks or their aftermath. More than 1,700 
have passed away from 9/11-related illnesses. More police officers have 
died from 9/11-related diseases than those who died on 9/11 itself.
  The participants in the 9/11 health program live in every single 
State. Every Senator in this Chamber has constituents who are sick and 
are registered in the 9/11 health program.
  The first responders we have lost leave behind families, spouses, and 
children. They leave behind bills, mortgages, car payments, and college 
tuition payments. These 9/11 illnesses not only rob families of their 
loved ones but leave them to face expenses without, in many cases, 
their family's primary bread winner.
  If Congress doesn't act now, how many more first responders and their 
families are going to suffer because we didn't do our job and 
reauthorize the program?
  On the most recent anniversary of the attacks, many of my colleagues 
here released statements and made posts online to commemorate the 
anniversary and remember the victims of 
9/11. Well, if you are a Senator and that is all you are doing--if all 
you are doing is just talking about the heroism, the courage, and what 
happened on 9/11--then we are not actually doing our jobs. If we are 
Senators and all we are doing is tweeting about 9/11 and the 
responders, then we are not fully fulfilling our duty as Senators.
  There is a bill right here, right now, waiting for a vote. The 
majority of this Chamber already supports the bill as cosponsors. It is 
widely bipartisan, and not one person is opposed to it. So what are we 
waiting for? We must reauthorize and make permanent the World Trade 
Center Health Program and the Victim Compensation Fund. We must finish 
our job.
  Let's truly never forget. Our 9/11 heroes deserve and desperately 
need this health care. So let's do our job. Let's vote on this bill. 
Let's pass it. The clock is ticking.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
Export-Import Bank and to encourage my colleagues in the Senate to take 
up and pass bipartisan legislation scheduled for consideration in the 
House next week that would reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank until September 
30, 2019.
  The Export-Import Bank helps American companies export their goods 
and services across the globe, helping businesses grow and creating 
more demand for American manufactured goods and agricultural products. 
Over its 80-year history, the Ex-Im Bank has provided loans to help 
businesses start exporting, open new markets, and access new customers. 
The Bank provides insurance to help businesses protect their bottom 
lines if a foreign buyer fails to pay and works with private lenders to 
fill gaps in financing that helps close deals that simply would never 
happen without its support. Most importantly, the Ex-Im Bank does all 
of this at no cost to the taxpayers. In fact, it makes money. Just last 
year, the Bank generated a $675 million surplus to help reduce the 
deficit.
  The Ex-Im Bank helps level the playing field for American companies 
in a tough global market. Last year it supported more than $27.4 
billion in U.S. exports and 164,000 jobs. More than $10 billion of that 
total--nearly 40 percent--represented exports by small businesses. The 
Ex-Im Bank is dedicated to serving small businesses in Michigan and 
across the country. Ninety percent of its overall transactions directly 
supported small businesses, including many that served suppliers for 
large companies.
  In 2013, I was proud to attend the opening of Ex-Im Bank's regional 
export finance center in Detroit with Governor Snyder and my colleague 
Senator Stabenow and Congressman John Dingell. In Michigan alone, the 
Bank has supported 229 exporter businesses selling $11 billion worth of 
goods to places such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Canada. This support 
is particularly important for our manufacturing industry, including 
motor vehicles and parts, machinery and chemicals--all vital sectors to 
our economy.
  Over the summer, I had the opportunity to visit a Michigan business, 
Mill Steel Company in Grand Rapids, which works with the Ex-Im Bank to 
export its products. Mill Steel is one of North America's premier flat-
rolled steel companies. It is also a family-owned business that wanted 
to make Michigan products and hire Michigan workers. Mill Steel sells 
and ships its steel to auto suppliers in Mexico and Canada. The loan 
guarantees provided by the Ex-Im Bank reduce Mill Steel's risk when 
exporting to foreign buyers, providing certainty and allowing them to 
continue hiring new employees and providing good-paying jobs in 
Michigan.
  Unfortunately, over the summer, despite bipartisan support for 
reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, a small, ideologically driven minority in 
Congress allowed the charter for the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States to expire, risking billions of dollars in exports, hundreds of 
thousands of American jobs, and putting our country at an economic 
disadvantage in a competitive global marketplace while also increasing 
the Federal deficit. The failure of Congress to act on this commonsense 
Federal program endangers jobs in Michigan and is simply unacceptable. 
General Electric has a plant in Michigan that employees 1,400

[[Page S7445]]

Michiganians. Over the summer, GE announced that it plans to relocate 
over 300 jobs from Wisconsin to Canada as a result of the Ex-Im Bank 
closing its doors. When this happened, my office was flooded with 
inquiries from a number of constituents concerned about what would 
happen to their communities and their own job security if a similar 
decision was made in Michigan. In the months since Ex-Im Bank's 
authorization has lapsed, GE has signed deals with export credit 
agencies in competitor foreign nations, creating jobs abroad instead of 
right here in the United States.
  As a Senator from a State with world-class engineering and 
manufacturing talent, I am frankly appalled by these developments, 
especially when we have already seen the benefits that the Bank has 
produced for Michigan's economy and workers in my State as well as 
across the country.
  The work done by the Ex-Im Bank is especially critical to Michigan 
manufacturers who fight to compete with countries using extreme and 
unfair measures such as direct subsidies or currency manipulation to 
boost their own manufacturing sectors. According to Ex-Im Bank's most 
recent annual report, there are 85 other competing foreign-sponsored 
export credit agencies helping their own domestic companies better 
compete on the global stage. Other countries, including China, Japan, 
South Korea, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany, use their own 
export credit agencies to boost their country's exports.
  China, in fact, provided more financing through its export credit 
agency in the last 2 years--approximately $670 billion--than our own 
Ex-Im Bank has offered in its entire 81-year history. These export 
financings are expected to significantly increase in coming years, 
which means that American firms and workers could fall further behind 
if we do not act now.
  Without our own Export-Import Bank, American businesses will struggle 
to compete overseas and our economy will suffer. As global competition 
intensifies, it simply makes no sense to engage in unilateral 
disarmament. We must stop the self-inflicted wounds on our economy. We 
must pledge to our constituents that we will first do no harm, and we 
must stop letting ideology impair our economic growth.
  I am pleased that a bipartisan, bicameral group of Senators and 
Representatives are saying that enough is enough, and are working to 
move a reauthorization forward. I am looking forward to working with 
them to get this done as soon as possible. Too much time has already 
been wasted, and too many jobs have already been jeopardized. We have 
to get back to the business of working together to find commonsense 
solutions to help, not hamper, our economic growth in America. Passing 
a long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is a great way to 
start.
  Once the House passes the reauthorization next week, I urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to schedule a vote as soon as possible. We 
know we have the votes. The legislation the House will soon consider is 
identical to an amendment passed by the Senate with a vote of 64 to 29 
in July while considering the long-term highway bill. We should do this 
now because there is not a moment to lose. American jobs hang in the 
balance.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________