[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6707-6725]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to Calendar 
No. 396, H.R. 2072.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to calendar No. 396, H.R. 2072, a bill to 
     reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now on the motion to proceed to the 
Export-Import Bank reauthorization bill. I ask unanimous consent that 
the hour following my remarks and those of the Republican leader be 
equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the 
Republicans the final half.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 11:15 today the motion to proceed to the 
Export-Import Bank will be adopted, and there will be up to 2 hours of 
debate on the bill, and there will be up to five amendments. At 12:30 
the Senate will recess until 2:15 for our weekly caucus meetings. As 
early as 2:15 there will be up to six rollcall votes in order to 
complete action on the Export-Import Bank. There could possibly be five 
votes as part of the order--I have been told they may not all be 
offered--and then we will have final passage on the bill.


                       Measure Placed on Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, H.R. 5652 is at the desk and due for a 
second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by 
title for the second time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5652) to provide for reconciliation pursuant 
     to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2013.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings on 
this issue at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the 
item shall be placed on the calendar.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to announce that Democrats and 
Republicans have reached an agreement to move forward with 
reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank legislation.
  This bank helps American companies sell their products overseas and 
hire workers here at home. It helped private companies add almost 
300,000 jobs last year in more than 2,000 American communities. That is 
why the labor groups, manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many 
other organizations have urged the Senate to move quickly to 
reauthorize this bank, whose lending limit is just about to expire.
  The second ranking officer at the chamber of commerce wrote to all 
Senators yesterday.

       Failure to enact this legislation would put at risk . . . 
     American jobs at 3,600 companies that depend on Ex-Im to 
     compete in global markets. . . . Because other countries are 
     providing their own exporters with an estimated $1 trillion 
     in export finance--often on terms more generous than Ex-Im 
     can provide--failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to 
     unilateral disarmament and cost tens of thousands of American 
     jobs. China, for instance, has three export credit agencies 
     that last year provided $300 billion in export finance to its 
     exporters--ten times more than Ex-Im provided. This bill 
     would help level the financial playing field in export 
     markets and ensure transparency in Ex-Im's operations.

  This is directly from the chamber of commerce.
  This legislation helps American businesses export their products 
instead of exporting jobs. Reauthorizing this important legislation is 
the kind of consensus proposal that should not result in any kind of a 
partisan fight. I spoke to Senator McConnell yesterday, and we made the 
decision that this is the best way to move forward. I am hopeful that 
the Senate will pass it overwhelmingly, signaling to American 
businesses that Congress will do what it takes to help them compete in 
the global market. But while Republicans say publicly that they support 
this important measure, they have instead insisted on votes on a number 
of amendments that would gut or even kill the bill.
  The chamber of commerce will consider votes on this measure--and any 
amendments that would weaken the bank--to be keys to determine whether 
Senators are business-friendly. The extreme amendments offered by my 
Republican colleagues would certainly weaken the bank. One amendment 
just eliminates the bank. These kinds of amendments are unacceptable to 
the business community.
  The National Association of Manufacturers issued a similar warning 
yesterday, which I read here on the floor. We agree, we can't afford to 
give an inch to our global competitors. Canada, France, and India 
already provide seven times the assistance to their exporters that 
America does. China and Brazil provide 10 times the support.
  So Senate Republicans are faced with a choice: They can continue to 
support these extreme amendments that would

[[Page 6708]]

effectively kill the Export-Import Bank and risk the wrath of the 
American business community or they can work with the Democrats to 
reauthorize this bank without adding amendments that would undermine 
its ability to help businesses grow. We have been told that the House 
is going to accept no amendments. It was very hard for them to get done 
what they did. I admire and appreciate what they did do. I am 
optimistic that my Republican colleagues will make the right choice and 
help us defeat these vexatious amendments.


                  Recognition of the Republican Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk on the left 
these days about the Senate being a dysfunctional institution. And they 
are right. For the past few years, the Senate hasn't functioned as it 
should. The question is, Why? In my view, the answer is quite clear: a 
majority party that believes it should be able to dictate from above 
the shape of every single piece of legislation we take up.
  The common complaint from the other side, as I understand it, is that 
because Republicans insist on playing a role in the legislative process 
around here, we are somehow violating some unspoken rule that says 
Democrats should always get their way, that we are somehow disturbing 
the legislative harmony by suggesting we do the kinds of things our 
constituents want. We have been dealing with this strange view of the 
Senate in some form or fashion for 5 years but particularly over the 
past 3.
  Here is how it works. Following the lead of our very liberal 
President, Democratic leaders in the Senate propose some piece of 
legislation without any Republican input at all. Then Republican 
amendments are blocked from even being considered. The point in most 
cases is to draw Republican opposition and ensure that the legislation 
fails. Democrats then cry obstruction as a way of distracting people 
from the fact that they basically have given up on governing and done 
nothing to ensure that our most pressing national problems actually get 
addressed. Rather than working with us on bipartisan solutions that 
reflect the concerns and input of our constituents and that therefore 
have a good chance of actually passing, Democrats blame the other side 
for obstruction--not only avoiding their own responsibilities as the 
majority party but handing the President a useful election-year theme 
on which to run.
  What my colleagues and I have been saying for 3 years is that it 
doesn't have to be this way. Give us an opportunity to play a role in 
the process and we will work together on bipartisan solutions. Just 
look at the record. When Democrats blocked all debate and amendments on 
the Export-Import Bank legislation, it went nowhere. When they agreed 
to our reasonable requests for input on the bill, that changed. They 
could have accepted this offer, actually, much earlier, but they didn't 
because it didn't fit the story line. The same thing on the postal 
bill--when Democrats blocked all amendments and debate, the bill 
stalled. When they agreed to a reasonable list of amendments, it 
passed. The same could be said about trade adjustment assistance, 
patent reform, FAA reauthorization, the highway bill, unemployment 
insurance, the doc fix, the payroll tax holiday, and others. It is the 
same story every time: Poisoned pills are removed, Republican input is 
allowed, and then things happen.
  Republicans have been crystal clear that the Export-Import Bank 
reauthorization needed some work. Remember, Democrats tried to add it 
as an amendment to the JOBS Act before the House reached the agreement 
that enabled it to pass on a bipartisan basis over in the House. But, 
again, they wanted to do it without giving Senate Republicans a chance 
to debate or amend on the floor, so it didn't go anywhere. Now that we 
are being allowed to offer further improvements to the bill, there is a 
path forward. Republicans fought for the right to make this bill more 
responsive to the concerns of the American people, who, understandably, 
want proof that we take our fiscal problems seriously. This is how the 
Senate is supposed to work, and it has been all too rare over the past 
several years.
  The Founders established the Senate as a place where issues would be 
resolved through consensus and considered bipartisan debate, so that 
once that consensus is actually reached, our laws would be stable and 
we could move on, confident that we had done the right thing.
  The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but six Members 
of the Senate. The Medicare and Medicaid acts of 1965 were approved by 
all but 21. All but eight Senators voted for the Americans With 
Disabilities Act of 1990. The idea in all these cases--and many 
others--was that on issues of broad national importance, on issues that 
affect all of us, one party shouldn't be allowed to force its will on 
the other half of the Nation. Yet, over the past few years, Democrats 
have felt quite differently.
  So I am pleased today to see a departure from the Democratic standard 
operating procedure on this particular piece of legislation before us. 
Because they have agreed to allow a reasonable amendment process on 
this bill--something they objected to last month and then objected 
again even as recently as last week--this bill will be considered today 
after debate and votes on amendments aimed at improving it.
  There is a lesson here: When both sides have a chance to debate and 
amend, legislation tends to move. But when the majority refuses any 
ideas that they didn't come up with, things slow down. Let's hope this 
new process will stick.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. President, this week we commemorate National Police Week 2012 and 
pay tribute to the men and women in the law enforcement community for 
their service and their sacrifice.
  In 1962 President Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 
15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which it falls as 
Police Week.
  During National Police Week, the Nation's Capital welcomes tens of 
thousands of law enforcement officers to honor those who have fallen in 
the line of duty. Among those visiting Washington are hundreds of 
police officers from my home State of Kentucky, and I want to 
personally welcome them and extend a special-thank you for their 
service and sacrifice that they make to keep Kentucky's communities and 
families safe. Your hard work and dedication is unmatched and does not 
go unnoticed.
  Today we honor the approximately 900,000 peace officers across the 
country as well as the more than 19,000 officers who have lost their 
lives dating back to the first known line-of-duty death in 1791, 
including 163 officers who died in 2011 and 36 officers who have been 
killed thus far in 2012. In addition, this year we are paying tribute 
to 199 officers who died in previous years but whose acts of courage 
and sacrifice were not discovered until recently.
  It is with great sadness that one of those officers we lost last year 
was from the Commonwealth--Officer James Philip ``Stumpy'' Stricklen of 
the Alexandria, KY Police Department.
  Officer Stricklen was well respected amongst his peers and a leader 
within the community. He will be sorely missed.
  This week the Nation honors Officer Stricklen, as well as all those 
police officers that have fallen. I would also like to take a moment to 
remember the families of the fallen. It is only through supportive 
families that these men and women were able to dedicate their lives to 
protecting others. May God continue to look after them and may God 
continue to protect all those, whose daily work is to protect us.
  I hope paying tribute to those who serve and especially those who 
have paid the ultimate sacrifice reminds all of us of the heroes we 
have all around us, keeping us safe, each day. I encourage everyone to 
take a moment this week and going forward to extend a thank you to law 
enforcement officers who have sworn to protect us and keep our 
communities safe.
  On behalf of myself and my Senate colleagues, thank you to all 
members

[[Page 6709]]

of the law enforcement community for your service. You have our deepest 
admiration and respect.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation Of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with 
the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans 
controlling the second 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I say a word about the Export-
Import Bank, I wish to speak as in morning business. I ask unanimous 
consent to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Senate Procedure

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the comments made by the Republican Senate 
leader about the procedures in the Senate are comments I wish to speak 
to directly.
  First, perhaps to his surprise, let me say I agree with him. The 
Senate is not what it should be. It is an important part of this 
government, it is an important part of this Nation, and it should be an 
important forum for the deliberation of critical issues that face us. 
Historically that is the role it has played.
  But what we have found over the last several years is that we have 
lapsed into a new Senate--and not a very good one, from my point of 
view. It is a Senate that is overrun with filibusters. Filibusters used 
to be so rare, one or two a year in the early days and then maybe a few 
more in the last 50 years, but now virtually every single week. The 
filibuster is basically shutting down the Senate, saying that we will 
not go forward to vote on a measure. It has been abused, overused and, 
frankly, has denigrated the reputation of this important institution.
  What are the points of view? The point of view of the minority was 
well stated by the Republican leader. The minority wants an opportunity 
to offer amendments. I know the feeling. I have been in the minority in 
the Senate. It is your only opportunity to have a voice on the floor of 
the Senate and to express a point of view that may not be reflected by 
the President or the Senate majority. That is an understandable 
impulse. The majority in the Senate is usually trying to move an 
agenda--many times, in this case, the President's agenda--and, frankly, 
does not want to see this slowed down by an onslaught of amendments. 
There has to be a happy medium, and that is what we need to see.
  The suggestion of the Senate Republican leader that the problem we 
have with filibusters has to do with the fact, as he said it, that the 
Republicans insist on playing a role in offering amendments is correct 
to a point. But I might remind the minority leader, what happened last 
week? We brought up the college student loan bill. The object was to 
make sure the interest rate on college student loans did not double 
July 1, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent--widely accepted, widely 
endorsed by President Obama and by Governor Romney. How about that? 
Both leading contenders for the Presidency said don't let this interest 
rate double. You would think that would be an easy thing to accomplish.
  What we offered on the floor to the Republicans was an opportunity to 
bring up the measure and they could bring up their amendments to the 
measure. That, I think, is what the Senate Republican leader just asked 
for. How many Republican Senators voted with us to bring up the student 
loan measure, subject to amendment? None. Not one. So this suggestion 
that we are in filibuster because we do not offer an opportunity for 
amendment overlooks what happened last week. The college student loan 
bill offered ample opportunity to the Republicans to offer an 
amendment, but they still refused to allow us to proceed to that 
measure.
  Here is what I suggest--perhaps a cooling-off period; perhaps that 
both sides do sit down and try to work out something that is 
reasonable.
  Some can argue--and perhaps at times I have argued--that the Senate 
should be an open forum, open debate of many different issues. But in 
the interest of achieving things here in a reasonable period of time, I 
suggest what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, did on postal reform 
was a good-faith effort to come to some kind of compromise with the 
minority. If you will remember, Senator Reid came to the floor and said 
we will accept relevant amendments to postal reform. We had quite a few 
of them, if you remember. I think it was a healthy time. It was a rare 
occasion, unfortunately, on the Senate floor, but it was a good-faith 
offer by the Democratic leader. It gave the Republicans opportunity to 
debate amendments. We debated them, we voted on them, and we passed 
postal reform.
  I think we need to find some commonality here, where we can offer to 
the minority, whichever party is in the minority, the opportunity to 
offer relevant amendments to a bill. That means, of course, it is an 
amendment that relates to the subject matter of the bill. Two recent 
examples show how far afield you can reach. Senator Blunt of Missouri 
offered an amendment to the transportation bill on the subject of birth 
control. Maybe there is some way you can link up transportation and 
birth control but I will not go there. I will just say that was a 
stretch to bring that issue to that bill, but he was given the chance. 
The junior Senator from Kentucky tried on bill after bill, totally 
unrelated to foreign policy, to offer an amendment on foreign aid to 
Egypt. That shows how far you can stretch the opportunity to offer a 
floor amendment.
  As I said, there can be moments where we want to do that but as a 
matter of course around here I hope we will try to find some common 
ground. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the Senate floor was actually a 
floor where amendments were offered, debate ensued, and a matter moved 
to final passage instead of watching us lurch from one mind-numbing 
filibuster to another? I have said it on the floor before, but a lot of 
people with cable TV are complaining to the cable TV providers that 
there must be something wrong with C-SPAN, nothing is happening on C-
SPAN. It is the Senate. And many times nothing happens because we are 
lurching through filibusters.
  Today we are going to move to the Export-Import bill.
  President Obama challenged us back in 2010 to create jobs by doubling 
exports of American-made products by 2015. It is a challenge to create 
and develop new technology, to tap into new markets and create new 
relationships, to more efficiently ship overseas our agricultural 
products and manufactured goods. In 2010, exports supported more than 
9.2 million American jobs. Every $1 billion in new exports sales 
supports 6,000 additional jobs. By doubling exports, we have the 
opportunity to create millions of new jobs right here at home, jobs 
that could put the millions of Americans still unemployed or 
underemployed back to work.
  Last year, Congress passed free trade agreements that will increase 
exports and provide access to markets in South Korea and Panama for 
U.S. exporters. The South Korea Free Trade Agreement alone is estimated 
to support 70,000 additional jobs by opening up Korea's $560 billion 
market to U.S. companies.
  Earlier this year, I introduced a bill with Senators Boozman and 
Coons in the Senate and Congressmen Chris Smith and Bobby Rush in the 
House that would boost U.S. jobs by increasing American exports to 
Africa by 200 percent in real dollars over the next ten years. This 
broadly bipartisan legislation takes common sense steps. The bill would 
coordinate the various U.S. Government export efforts aimed at Africa, 
make sure our Foreign Service Officers have appropriate training on 
helping U.S. companies understand new markets, and ensure that our 
Department of Commerce keeps a focus on Africa. And the bill makes a 
change at the Export Import Bank--a bank which actually makes hundreds 
of millions of dollars in profits for the American taxpayer.

[[Page 6710]]

  Our bill empowers the Export Import Bank to be more aggressive in 
countering concessional--or below market--loans being offered by China 
and others to help their businesses crack into African markets.
  You see this is a global economy and the competition from other 
nations and industry is fierce. Our government should be helping our 
businesses--and our workers--crack through to new markets where 
American quality and standards are in high demand. This isn't corporate 
welfare, it is smart business. It doesn't cost the American taxpayer 
anything--in fact it generates jobs and funding. These are all steps 
that will get us closer to meeting President Obama's challenge.
  We have another opportunity to help U.S. businesses export more by 
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank that is set to expire at the end 
of this month. The Export-Import Bank makes loans to firms exporting 
American-made products. These loans allow businesses--including a large 
number of small businesses--across the U.S. sell their goods to 
businesses all over the world. The Bank makes money off of these loans, 
money that is returned to the U.S. Treasury year after year. The bank 
has a loan loss rate of less than 2 percent--a figure most banks would 
envy.
  It is estimated that the Export-Import Bank will return $359 million 
to the United States Treasury in fiscal year 2013 alone, and according 
to CBO the bank will return almost $1 billion over the next 5 years. 
This money is used directly to reduce the deficit. The Export-Import 
Bank is responsible for supporting 288,000 jobs at more than 2,700 U.S. 
companies. Mr. President, 113 of these companies are located in my home 
State of Illinois, and 80 of those are small businesses.
  One of these companies is NOW Health Group in Bloomingdale, IL. This 
company is a natural food and supplement manufacturer with more than 
640 employees, 35 of which are supported by assistance from the Export-
Import Bank. According to NOW's Chief Operating Officer Jim Emme, ``The 
flexibility in the payment terms we can offer through our Export Import 
Bank policy has allowed us to grow our business in existing markets as 
well as open new ones.'' NOW has grown its exports from 2 percent of 
their overall business to more than 10 percent. They could not have 
done this without the Export Import bank. There are thousands of 
stories just like this all over the U.S.
  The reauthorization increases the Bank's lending cap from $100 
billion to $140 billion and authorizes the Bank through 2014. 
Legislation reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank has received 
overwhelming bipartisan support in the past. Similar legislation 
reauthorizing the Bank received bipartisan support in the Banking 
Committee and was reported out of Committee by a voice vote, and a 
similar Export-Import Bank reauthorization was introduced by a 
Republican back in 2006 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
  I hope we can come to an agreement soon to quickly pass a bill to 
reauthorize the Export Import Bank, a bill the House has already passed 
with broad bipartisan support. This bill has support from labor 
organizations such as the AFL-CIO and the Machinists as well as the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
  Mr. President, this is a bill that gives American corporations, large 
and small, a fighting chance to build the products here in America and 
sell them overseas, creating jobs right here at home. We live in a 
world where China--most important China, but many other nations, have 
government support for their businesses' exporting. This is our 
government's support for our businesses to export. Boeing has its 
national headquarters in Chicago and most of their manufacturing 
operations in the State of Washington. Boeing is competing with Airbus. 
Airbus is a product, a plane that is created by a conglomerate of 
European nations which do their best to make sure that Airbus wins a 
contract. I think it is not unfair that Boeing have the same 
opportunity, nor Caterpillar in my State, nor many businesses much 
smaller.
  So the Export-Import Bank reauthorization is a good idea. It will 
create jobs. The amendments being offered on the Republican side, by 
and large, limit the opportunities to help American businesses. I will 
be resisting those amendments. I hope we can move to passage of this 
measure in a timely fashion.
  I yield for Senator Lautenberg.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.


                      Confirming Judicial Nominees

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues on 
this side to urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move 
quickly to confirm highly qualified judicial nominees. They passed 
review by the Judiciary Committee. They passed all kinds of scrutiny.
  We are on the verge of serious economic improvements. As that takes 
place, we have a lot of parts to keep moving. We must do everything we 
can to fill the positions that can help, directly and indirectly, to 
resolve disputes or problems, to help Americans across the country to 
find work, stay in their homes, provide their children with health care 
and education. We have to cooperate on all fronts to accelerate the 
pace of the recovery we see ahead of us.
  One of the places both sides benefit is to keep our justice system 
moving efficiently. People need to know they can get disputes resolved, 
hopefully quickly, but heard and decided. One of the things that looms 
large is the trial of those who are charged with felonious deeds, 
criminal acts. Let's get those who are convicted finally punished if it 
is called for. But let's make sure that part of our judiciary 
functioning is moving as rapidly as it can be.
  Property rights are at risk. Businesses need certainty about rights 
and responsibilities. Unfortunately, delays in confirming qualified 
judicial nominees who have passed the scrutiny of the Judiciary 
Committee are threatening to grind the wheels of justice to a halt when 
there are vacancies around. Nearly 1 in 11 judgeships across the 
country is awaiting the position to be filled. If these positions were 
physicians, firemen, cops, and 1 out of 11, almost 10 percent of these 
jobs, were not filled, we would do something as rapidly as we could to 
get them resolved. At this point in President George Bush's Presidency, 
the Senate had confirmed 25 more judges than have been confirmed since 
President Obama took office. These are seriously needed nominees who 
have been forced to wait nearly four times as long as the Bush nominees 
to be confirmed after being favorably reported, as I mentioned, by the 
Judiciary Committee.
  As a result, the vacancy rate is nearly twice what it was at this 
point in President Bush's first term. These vacancies are not some 
remote problems that only lawyers and academics care about. Judicial 
vacancies affect the ability of everyday Americans and businesses to 
see justice served, and countless of them have had their cases delayed.
  I am encouraged that we have been able to confirm a number of 
nominees lately, including two last evening. It is my hope that for the 
good of the country we will pick up the pace in confirming nominees--
particularly as I see it from our State's point of view. In our State 
of New Jersey we have three distinguished nominees who have been 
approved by the Judiciary Committee and are awaiting votes by the full 
Senate so they can get to work fulfilling their obligation to dispense 
justice.
  One of these people is magistrate judge Patty Shwartz, who has been 
nominated to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. She passed 
with flying colors with an examination of her background. She would be 
the only woman from New Jersey serving as an active Third Circuit judge 
and only the second woman ever to represent New Jersey on that court. 
Her presence would tell women something important about our 
understanding of where women are in our society. Since 2003 Patty 
Shwartz has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of New 
Jersey, where she has handled 4,000

[[Page 6711]]

criminal and civil cases. She spent almost 14 years as an assistant 
U.S. attorney, supervising hundreds of criminal cases, including civil 
rights, violent crime, drug trafficking, and fraud cases.
  I review her qualifications only to make the case that this is a 
person eminently qualified to sit on the bench. We need her presence 
there to move the volume of cases that are awaiting review, and she is 
bottled up here by reluctance on the other side. She passed the test. 
Let's let her go to work.
  John Lacey, past president of the Association of the New Jersey 
Federal Bar, said that Judge Shwartz is ``thoughtful, intelligent, and 
has an extraordinarily high level of common sense.''
  Thomas Curtin, chairman of the Lawyers Advisory Committee for the 
U.S. District Court of New Jersey, said:

       Every lawyer in the world will tell you that she's 
     extraordinarily qualified, a decent person, and an excellent 
     judge.

  The American Bar Association clearly agrees. They gave her the 
highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified.''
  Judge Shwartz graduated from Rutgers University with the highest 
honors. She received her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania 
Law School, where she was editor of the Law Review and was named her 
class's Outstanding Woman Law Graduate.
  The two nominees for New Jersey's district court are similarly well 
qualified.
  Kevin McNulty currently leads an appellate practice group in New 
Jersey. He spent more than a decade in the U.S. Attorney's Office in 
New Jersey, rising to the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division and 
Chief of the Appeals Division.
  Mr. McNulty clerked for U.S. district judge Frederick B. Lacey after 
receiving his law degree from New York University, where he was a 
member of the Law Review, and his undergraduate degree came from Yale 
University. He was named Lawyer of the Year in 2008 by the New Jersey 
Law Journal, and the ABA rated him unanimously ``well qualified.'' I am 
confident that his work as a judge will earn him similar praise.
  Judge Michael Shipp, yet another appointee, has equally impressive 
credentials. As a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey 
since 2007, he has conducted proceedings in both civil and criminal 
cases, including ruling on motions, issuing recommendations to district 
court judges, and performing district court judge duties in cases with 
magistrate jurisdiction.
  Judge Shipp previously worked in the New Jersey Attorney General's 
Office as assistant attorney general in charge of consumer protection 
and then as counsel to the attorney general, where he ran a department 
of 10,000 employees.
  He has also worked as a litigator at a distinguished law firm, 
Skadden Arps, and as a law clerk to New Jersey Supreme Court Justice 
James Coleman, Jr.
  Judge Shipp is a graduate of Rutgers University and Seton Hall 
University Law School, where he continues to teach as an adjunct law 
professor--a position he has held for more than a decade.
  I review the qualifications of these judges to remove any doubt about 
whether they could do a good job. They can do a great job. Their 
backgrounds say they are ready to go to work, and here we are, frankly, 
seeing them held up, in my view, unnecessarily. Let's get this behind 
us. There are things on which we can cross the aisle without invading 
the province of the other Members, and I think we just ought to 
cooperate on judges. I think I can speak for the Democrats here that we 
will cooperate. We will consider the judges who are presented from 
their side, but we want to just get going with judges altogether.
  I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for moving these 
nominees through the Judiciary Committee, but now it is time to bring 
them to the floor and confirm them. Judge Shwartz, Mr. McNulty, and 
Judge Shipp have brought honor to New Jersey and to our country, and 
they deserve to be confirmed. More importantly, the American people 
deserve to see these vacancies filled so the promise of justice for all 
can truly be fulfilled.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I wish to continue to emphasize the 
remarks Senator Lautenberg made. I have not been here that long, but 
what I have seen happen in the last 2 or 3 years where judges appointed 
by the President of the United States are slow-walked or just ignored 
or blocked in this body is just outrageous.
  In 2007, during my first month in office, I was presented with a 
Republican judge, coming from a Republican President, approved by my 
predecessor, Senator DeWine, and my colleague, Senator Voinovich. I met 
with her, talked with her, and I sent my approval to the Judiciary 
Committee. She was confirmed in the second or third month I was here, 
because I believe the President of the United States should have the 
right to choose judges as long as they are qualified. That is why I ask 
that we move forward on these judicial nominations.
  In June 2010 U.S. district judge James Carr took senior status, 
creating a vacancy in the Northern District Court in Toledo, OH. That 
means that Ohioans seeking criminal or civil justice have to wait, 
which creates a backlog of too many cases. That is what we have seen 
happen.
  In 2007 Senator Voinovich, a Republican, and I assembled a commission 
of distinguished Ohio lawyers to find the best candidate for the job. 
It wasn't in 2007; it was later than that. In 2009 there was a 
President from a different party, so we updated the commission. This 
commission, appointed by Senator Voinovich and myself, consisted of 
legal professionals from the Southern District of the State to suggest 
nominations for the vacant judgeships for the Northern District of the 
State. We did the reverse, with lawyers from the north choosing for the 
Southern District, to make sure there was not a conflict of interest. 
This commission was very bipartisan. One of them had a Republican 
majority, one of them had a Democratic majority.
  Following Judge Carr's retirement, the commission made a selection. I 
interviewed three nominees, sent those names to the President, and then 
the President nominated Jeffery Helmick. Jeffery Helmick is a Toledo 
native, a brilliant and distinguished lawyer who has earned the respect 
of his colleagues for doing his job well. Yet for nearly 2 years his 
nomination has languished. For nearly 2 years he has had to place his 
defense practice and life on hold, awaiting Senate confirmation. This 
is no way to treat a public servant.
  According to the U.S. Constitution, it is our job to confirm 
qualified nominees to serve on our Nation's highest court. But as of 
April of 2012--Senator Lautenberg mentioned this, and Senator Nelson 
from Florida will in a moment--there are 81 judicial vacancies 
throughout the United States. In my State of Ohio, the court is saying 
there is a judicial emergency. The nonpartisan Administrative Office of 
the Courts, the nonpartisan agency charged with running our Federal 
courts, recently declared a judicial emergency for the Northern 
District of Ohio.
  Mr. Helmick has the enthusiastic support of all of the Federal judges 
in Toledo, including those appointed by Republican Presidents, was 
recommended by a bipartisan process created by Senator Voinovich and 
me, and yet his nomination is still stuck even though there is a 
judicial emergency and even though he was approved in a bipartisan 
manner by the Judiciary Committee. The result is that litigants in the 
Northern District are experiencing delays in having their cases 
resolved. In too many cases, justice conferred--as the saying goes--can 
be just denied.
  Our Nation's courts have been a beacon of hope--sometimes, not 
always--for the vulnerable and the powerless, but this confirmation 
delay clogs our courts, obstructs justice, and damages our democracy. 
Maybe some people are playing political games by slow-walking these 
judges. In the end, they might think it is cute, funny, and they

[[Page 6712]]

might think they gain politically from it, but it does obstruct 
justice, it does clog our courts, and it does damage our democracy. So 
it is not cute, it is not funny, and it is not worthy of any political 
gains in this Chamber.
  Jeffrey Helmick will make an outstanding judge on the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of Ohio. We need to confirm him, and we 
need to confirm him this month before Congress breaks.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the time on the Democratic side be equally controlled by myself and 
Senator Levin.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. That would mean how many minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 6\1/2\ minutes remaining 
for the majority.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. For the total?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then I will speed up my remarks until I see 
Senator Levin come in.
  Mr. President, I, too, wish to talk about the vacancies. There is no 
sense for all of this slow-walking. Fortunately in Florida we have a 
process that takes the politics out of the selection of judges. The two 
Senators appoint a judicial nominating commission of prominent people 
all over the State, and they do the interviews and they do the 
selections of at least three for each vacancy. Because they do this in 
a nonpartisan way--notice what I said. I didn't say ``bipartisan,'' I 
said ``nonpartisan way,'' which is the way the selection of the 
judiciary ought to be done. Because they do that in a nonpartisan way, 
all three of the nominees who come to the two Senators--any one of them 
can be a Federal judge because they are all so qualified.
  Fortunately, with the agreement we have with the White House, the 
President can name whomever he wants. He agrees to accept the nominee 
and make his pick from among the three we send him if we approve all 
three after the two Senators have, in fact, gone through and 
interviewed them. So we have a process. Why should there be a delay on 
judges like that? There absolutely shouldn't.
  For example, take one of our Federal judges. Judge Jordan was 
elevated by the President to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. At the end of the day, he 
won on this Senate floor 94 to 5, but he was held up for 4 months. Why? 
There is too much gamesmanship and partisanship in the process, and 
particularly coming out of a State such as Florida where it is 
nonpartisan in the selection of judges.
  We have two vacancies in the Southern District and two vacancies in 
the Middle District of Florida right now. One of the judges is up on 
the docket. Two others have just come through and had their hearing in 
committee. The fourth is being vetted by the White House. Let's go on 
and get approved these judges where there is no controversy.
  I see my colleague from Michigan is here. I will turn the remainder 
of my time to him.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Members of the Senate have a duty and 
obligation to carefully consider the votes we take on nominations to 
the Federal courts. Our Constitution has established a judicial branch 
with vitally important responsibilities and with considerable 
independence from the other branches of government. The Founders were 
right to do so. They were also right to give this body a say on 
nominations to that independent branch. It is the one chance that the 
people, through their elected representatives, have to influence the 
makeup of the Federal courts.
  I do not begrudge any Senator the right to carefully question 
judicial nominees, to carefully weigh their qualifications, and to 
exercise their best judgment as they exercise their responsibilities 
that the Founders assigned to the Senate.
  The question we must all answer is this: When do careful 
consideration and the exercise of good judgment become damaging delay? 
For just as we can fail to serve our constituents by failing to 
properly scrutinize judicial nominees, we can fail to serve them by 
failing to act on these nominations after there has been sufficient 
time for the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to scrutinize them.
  Today nearly 1 in 10 Federal judgeships is vacant. Roughly half of 
all Americans live in judicial districts or circuits in which the 
Federal courts have declared a judicial emergency, meaning according to 
the standards established by the Supreme Court, residents face the 
prospect of unacceptable delays in having cases heard because vacancies 
have led to a troubling backlog of cases.
  It is a precept of Western judicial thought that justice delayed is 
justice denied; that even a correct verdict can be without justice if 
it comes too late to matter to the parties involved, especially if that 
delay is not justified by the circumstances or the complexity of the 
case.
  The dangers for our Nation in these judicial emergencies are great: 
First, that Americans may be robbed of justice by unjustified delay; 
second, that Americans may come to doubt that the courts are capable of 
dispensing justice because they cannot function effectively; and, 
third, that in seeking to clear the growing backlog of cases the courts 
may rush to judgment and may fail to apply the rigor that Americans 
expect and deserve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for an 
additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 17 judicial 
nominations that are now awaiting votes on the floor of the Senate. 
There is no question that the wait for many of the judicial nominees of 
President Obama has been unacceptable. Under the previous President, at 
this point in his term the average district court nominee waited 22 
days from favorable report by the Judiciary Committee to Senate 
confirmation. The average circuit court nominee waited 28 days.
  By contrast, the average district court nominee under President Obama 
has faced a wait of 97 days, and the average for circuit court nominees 
is 138 days. Yet the vast majority of these nominees are not 
controversial. They enjoy bipartisan support. We should move quickly to 
confirm these nominees who have been receiving bipartisan backing, 
particularly, and to review, debate, and act as expeditiously as we can 
on the small number of nominations about which there is some debate.
  There is a great deal of discussion about which party is to blame 
about the ever-slower pace of judicial nominations. I have my own 
strong beliefs on that question. Our constituents are best served not 
by arguing over blame, but by our exercise of the responsibility the 
Constitution bestows upon us. I simply ask all of my colleagues to 
consider on each of these nominations the damage done by delay and 
inaction, and to carefully consider the threat to justice from the 
growing crisis of delay in our courts. We can and should act promptly 
on the 17 nominees on the calendar.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with my Republican colleagues: Senators Kyl, Coburn, Isakson, 
and Heller for up to 30 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to talk 
about something I think is an issue that without a solution will affect 
every single aspect of life in our country. I

[[Page 6713]]

am speaking about our debt crisis, the impending fiscal cliff, and the 
lack of a budget to address those issues. As I said, I am very pleased 
to be joined by my colleagues to talk about this issue.
  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Senate has lacked the will 
and the leadership to fulfill what I consider its most basic 
legislative function: writing and adopting a budget resolution. That 
has gone on for more than 3 years.
  While I understand we are rapidly approaching the time where 
Presidential politics will consume the entire agenda, the U.S. national 
debt is also rapidly approaching a significant milestone: $16 trillion 
worth of debt. We should look no further than Greece or Spain to see 
what this level of debt would do to an economy if it goes unchecked.
  There are so many frightening statistics, but here is one: America's 
per capita national debt already significantly outpaces that of Greece 
or Spain. So as we watch them spiral further into crisis, we should be 
jolted into action by the very suggestion that our debt is equally as 
alarming. Yet we are unable to pass a basic budget resolution to get 
our spending in check. That constitutes a lack of leadership.
  As I said, I have many colleagues here today who can talk about a 
better approach. I would like to start today with Senator Johnny 
Isakson.
  Senator Isakson has spent his career working on budget issues.
  I say to Senator Isakson, what is the impact of no budget resolution 
for 3 years? Is there a better way? Is there a better way to approach 
the budgeting process than what we are dealing with now?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for the question and 
for his service. As a former Governor of the State of Nebraska, he 
knows full well the responsibility we have in terms of budgets. But I 
will tell you what the impact of no budget for 3 years is, no 
discipline for 3 years. The result of no discipline for 3 years is we 
spend $10.4 trillion without a budget.
  I do not know how good you are with your memory, I do not know how 
good I am with mine, but if I do not have a budget or a guidepost to go 
by, and I am spending $10.4 trillion, I am making big mistakes. I am 
making big mistakes not with my money but with the money of the people 
of the United States of America.
  Last night I did a telephone townhall back to Georgia. At one time we 
had a little over 3,200 callers on the line. Question after question, 
with a very simple question: How can you guys operate without a budget? 
Why can't you get a budget? Why can't you bring a budget to the floor.
  The fact is it is because our budget requirements cast out 10 years 
of planning for taxes, 10 years of planning for expenditures, 10 years 
of planning for the government. A lot of people just do not want us to 
know what their plans are for the next 10 years.
  But every American family in this country has had to sit around their 
kitchen table, reprioritize their expenditures, and budget what income 
they have because of difficult economic times. The Government should 
ask of itself only what it forces upon all of its people.
  I have a suggestion to consider, a suggestion that 20 of our 50 
States practice. Forty percent of our State governments now have a 
biennial budget. It is a proposal that has been before this body for 
years. I am proud to be the cosponsor with Senator Jeanne Shaheen from 
New Hampshire. It is a budget process and a discipline that ends this 
no budget and also memorializes the most important thing we need to do 
and the least thing we do in this body; that is, oversight.
  The biennial budget proposes we would do our budgeting in odd-
numbered years and our appropriating in odd-numbered years and do it 
for a 2-year period rather than a 1-year period. Then, in the even-
numbered year--an election year--we would do oversight of spending. We 
do not ever do any oversight.
  The best oversight person in the Senate sits to my right. His name is 
Tom Coburn. He is going to be the closing act in this colloquy. He is 
going to show some pictures that cast a lot more than 1,000 words about 
the duplication of expenditures in this government, primarily because 
we have no oversight and we have no discipline. We go back at 
appropriations year after year after year but never look at justifying 
what we spent in the year before.
  So to the Senator from Nebraska, I say to the people of Georgia and 
the people of the United States, I want to expect of myself and our 
government at least what is mandated upon you. I want us to begin to be 
accountable for our spending and hold accountable those who spend that 
money. I want us to do our appropriations in a balanced way, in a 
disciplined way, and never again go 1,000 days without a budget, never 
again have $10.4 trillion of spending without a budget, never again 
look the American people in the eye and say: I, as your Government, am 
not willing to do what you must do.
  It is absolutely time we stop the redundancy, start prioritizing, and 
start conducting oversight. When we do that, America will be better 
off, our fiscal policy will be better off, our debt and deficit will 
come down, and we will return to those days all of us yearn for, with 
better prosperity and absolute accountability.
  I thank the Senator from Nebraska for giving me the opportunity to 
expound on the biennial budget.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Isakson.
  Senator Isakson referenced my time as Governor of Nebraska. But I 
speak on behalf of all Governors. The Governor has to deliver a budget. 
In Nebraska, we used a 2-year budget, and that is what makes me proud 
to cosponsor the Senator's idea. It is the right approach. It simply 
says we are going to do our very best to get a budget passed and do the 
oversight necessary to make sure that budget is working.
  So I compliment the Senator on his idea. It is definitely a better 
way forward.
  Let me, if I might, now turn to Senator Kyl.
  I say to Senator Kyl, when I was Governor I always had the first shot 
at delivering a budget. I would deliver it. I would do the State of the 
State Address. It was not that much different from the way it is done 
in Washington, with the President's February budget proposal. The State 
of the Union Address coincides with that.
  With my budget--and I think most Governors would say this--even when 
there was real arm wrestling with the legislative process, I always 
believed I would get about 90 to 95 percent of my budget proposals 
across the finish line. It was a serious proposal. There were no 
gimmicks. It was a balanced budget. It did not borrow money to balance 
the budget.
  I say to the Senator, how do you regard the President's budget 
submission these last years, and why isn't it getting more support in a 
bipartisan sort of way?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, first of all, I will 
repeat what Senator Isakson said. As a Governor, you had to balance the 
budget. You know how to do it. You understand the importance of it. I 
appreciate the Senator's work on this colloquy today in that regard.
  I would note that my own State of Arizona just concluded its work on 
a budget. It was hard. The Governor had her proposals. The State 
legislature did its work. It was hard slogging because they had to make 
tough decisions, but they did. Just last week, they finished the budget 
in the legislative session.
  Families have to do it, States have to do it, but here in the 
Congress now, under the Democratic control of the Senate, for 3 
straight years there has not been a budget.
  As the Senator knows, however, the President submits a budget each 
year. Last year, his budget was, frankly, met with derision from 
pundits, from experts, and from economists who said it was not a 
serious proposal. I looked up the number. Last year his budget was 
rejected 97 to 0 in the Senate.
  So what about this year? Well, the same thing. It was not a serious 
effort. It was a political document. Everybody could see it. So they 
put it to a vote in the House of Representatives. It was

[[Page 6714]]

defeated 414 to 0. Not a single Democrat voted for the President's 
budget. They understood it was not serious.
  Well, we will have an opportunity to vote on the President's budget 
again this afternoon, and I expect the same fate. Why? Well, three 
quick points.
  First of all, it accelerates our path to national bankruptcy. It 
fails to address entitlement spending. It has a slew of job-killing tax 
hikes. And it does nothing to effectuate even the President's own 
deficit reduction committee plan for reducing the deficit.
  Just a couple of numbers: It contains a whopping $1.8 trillion tax 
hike on individuals, small businesses, investment, and family-owned 
farms. Think about the job-killing nature, the wet blanket that puts 
over our economy--a $1.8 trillion tax hike. This comes on top of the 
tax hikes that are already embedded in ObamaCare, which will extract an 
additional $4 trillion from the private sector by 2035 according to the 
Joint Economic Committee. Even with this tax hike, the President's 
budget would increase deficits by nearly $6.4 trillion over the next 
decade.
  Now, you stop and think: Wait. Aren't the tax hikes supposed to be 
there in order to balance the budget? Well, you would think so. But 
under the President's budget, notwithstanding all of the new revenue 
from taxes, it increases the deficit by nearly $6.4 trillion, and it 
would spend a staggering $45.4 trillion during the period of the 
budget, which is $1.2 trillion higher than the Congressional Budget 
Office baseline from last March.
  I know these statistics are mind boggling, and I hate to cite them. 
But you do need to back up what you are saying with the actual data. 
That is the point. The President's budget is a job killer, it increases 
taxes, and it still never balances.
  I would point out that under his budget, while spending would reach 
23.5 percent of the economy this year, and never get below 22 percent 
of GDP over the next decade, the historical average is much lower: 20.8 
percent of GDP.
  So bottom line, the President's budget would lock in the fourth 
straight year of deficits above $1 trillion, and even though the 
President--and here is what the President said--he promised to ``cut 
the deficit in half by the end of my first term. . . . ''
  Well, the President's budget would never balance notwithstanding the 
huge tax increases. That is what is wrong with the President's budget. 
It is why it is not going to pass today. It is why it did not pass last 
year.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Very clearly this body is saying, the Senate and the 
House of Representatives, when they vote on the President's budget, 
they are saying very clearly: The President's budget spends too much, 
it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. It does not solve any 
problems.
  I think actually that is the very clear unanimous message at this 
point from these bodies. This is not a serious budget proposal.
  Mr. KYL. If I could add one other item to what my colleague said, we 
all know the big problem is spending on entitlements, the so-called 
mandatory spending. Well, the only thing mandatory about it is that it 
has to be spent unless we say something different. But we do not have 
the courage around here to reform our entitlement programs to the point 
that they are going to be available for at least our kids by the time 
they retire, and in some cases they may not even be available for some 
of us.
  The other thing I would want to say about the President's budget is 
it continues this glidepath to insolvency for Medicare, which the 
recent Trustees Report says has an unfunded liability of $26.4 
trillion. So in addition to spending too much, taxing too much, and 
borrowing too much, it does not do anything about the biggest problem 
we have, which is the broken entitlement programs that are not going to 
work for the people who are currently anticipating they will be there 
for them when they retire.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Senator Kyl makes an excellent point. If I could call on 
my colleague, Senator Coburn, who, as much as any Member of the Senate, 
has been the watchdog when it comes to spending and programs that 
duplicate each other, he has been the person who oftentimes has stood 
on the Senate floor alone and pointed out to everybody how much waste 
there is in the Federal Government.
  Senator Coburn has been a great leader. He was on the fiscal 
commission, a member of the original Gang of 6. I would like to hear 
his views on the budgetary mess we find ourselves in now.
  Mr. COBURN. Well, let me, first of all, I thank my colleague. I have 
a couple of charts that are oversized. The reason they are oversized is 
because we cannot get it all on one chart. I would ask unanimous 
consent to display those charts.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. What most people do not realize is the Federal Government 
is now twice the size it was in 2001. Think about that. We are spending 
twice as much money as we did in 2001. As a matter of fact, if we go 
back 15 years, our deficit this year is bigger than what our entire 
budget was. That is how out of control the Federal Government is.
  There is a political reason we are not having a budget. Everybody 
understands that. Nobody is going to say that. The political reason no 
budget was proposed and run through the Senate to create a conference 
committee with the House is because we do not want to make the hard 
choices in an election year.
  Budgets for families are about making hard choices, and yet here we 
are supposed to represent leadership in our country. We refuse to make 
hard choices about the direction.
  I had the great opportunity to speak with some members in the War 
College class not long ago. We got into talking about budgets. They 
said: Do you realize how difficult it is for us to try to spend money 
when you send us a continuing resolution, and we do not know about it 
until 10 days before it is going to take effect, how difficult it is 
for us to try to manage in a prudent way the money that the Federal 
Government spends when we have no budgetary guidelines? There is waste 
out the kazoo when you ask us to do that.
  So regardless of the fact that there is a law that says we will pass 
a budget, which has been totally ignored by the majority leader, the 
consequences of that are tremendous. What most people talk about is how 
do we get out of the problem. What I would put forward in terms of our 
budget, there is not a problem in front of our country we cannot solve.
  What we lack is leadership to pull us together as Americans to say: 
Here is the problem. Here are the solutions. Let's find a compromise in 
the middle for the solution, and let's solve our problem. We have 
refused to do that. But, most importantly, we refuse to look at 
ourselves.
  I have a couple of examples. The GAO put out its second annual 
report--the first one was last year, the second annual report this 
year--in terms of duplicative programs. We have had amendments on this 
floor fail routinely that said we ought to know what we are doing 
before we pass another bill. We ought to know what is already out 
there. That has been rejected by my colleagues.
  But I am going to show charts that show how ridiculous we are in 
terms of how we are well meaning but absolutely stupid in terms of how 
we address problems that we perceive is the Federal Government's role.
  The GAO put out a list of duplications. I am just going to read a few 
of them. I have given speeches on the floor on others, but there are 
209 different programs--209 different programs in the Federal 
Government for science, technology, engineering, and math initiatives 
for our educational system. We spend $3 billion a year on that.
  The overlap is unbelievable. Here is the chart that shows all of the 
different programs with all of the different agencies involved, all of 
them overlapping, most of the money wasted in terms of how we spend it 
because there is no concentration, there is no coordination, and what 
we have is a ridiculous array--not that it is wrong to

[[Page 6715]]

want to have more science, more technology, more engineering, and more 
math students. But we are spending all the money on the bureaucracy 
when we could have five programs: one for upper level, one for lower 
level, one for minorities, one for disadvantaged, and one for others. 
Here is the complex. It is mind boggling how many programs we have, and 
there is not a metric to measure whether any one of these is effective. 
That is $3 billion a year.
  We could have one-tenth as many programs and spend one-half as much 
money and have more students come out with science, technology, 
engineering, and math backgrounds. But we have decided to do it 
piecemeal and never do the oversight and never consolidate. If we 
wanted to get out of a $1 trillion deficit, we do it $1 billion at a 
time, not do it with $1 trillion at a time.
  The other program, which is even more difficult to ascertain, is in 
the Department of Justice grants. Let me go through those just for a 
second. There are 253 duplicative programs in the Department of 
Justice. We spend a total of $3.9 billion a year, and here is what the 
GAO tells us. People who apply for one grant in DOJ--for one thing--
turn around and apply for it somewhere else for exactly the same thing. 
The Department of Justice does not know they just gave them two grants 
for exactly the same thing because there are so many different grant 
programs and nobody is watching the store.
  So the point is nobody would run their household this way. No 
business would operate this way. States that are successful do not 
operate this way. The reason we do this is because we do not have a 
budget and we do not have any oversight and we are not minding the 
store. The way to change what is coming for our country is to start 
doing everything that is necessary to address the problem.
  And the problem is this: We are spending money we do not have on 
things we do not need, and nobody in Congress wants to do the hard work 
of ferreting out what works and what does not and making the hard 
choices because every one of these programs has a constituency.
  So the parochialism and the constituency and short-term thinking we 
are now bound up in keeps us from saving ourselves. Last quote, and I 
will finish with this: John Adams said, ``There has yet to be a 
democracy that did not murder itself.'' We are on that way if we do not 
change direction. It is not a Democrat-Republican problem. It is all 
our problem. It will not matter what our political persuasion is when 
we face the very difficult coming times if we do not respond with a 
cogent budget for this country.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Senator. We look at those charts and reach 
the conclusion, inescapably, if we do not start doing oversight and 
start figuring this out, we are not going to solve this problem. My 
colleague's reputation as a watchdog of the Federal Government is well 
earned.
  Let me now turn to my colleague, Senator Heller. Senator Heller 
brings great experience. He might be the newest Member of the Senate--I 
think he is--but he has great experience on the House side. He has seen 
how the budget process works there. He now has some experience on the 
Senate side. The Senator sees the lack of a budget process.
  I would like him to offer some thoughts on what is broken and what we 
might do to fix this.
  Mr. HELLER. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for yielding time and 
also those from Oklahoma and Arizona for this colloquy that we are 
having today and the ability to talk about issues that, frankly, the 
other side will not talk about--in fact, their conspicuous absence 
today on the other side is clear of the depth of their budget.
  As we have heard, we have not had a budget for the last 3 years. So I 
rise today in support of a serious debate concerning the direction of 
our Nation. Three years have passed since Congress adopted a binding 
budget resolution. In this light, I respectfully submit that the 
American people do not believe that today's debate is serious. They 
know the Senate is not going to adopt a budget; once again it will 
ignore one of the most basic and important jobs of Congress.
  What the Senate is doing this week could be considered political 
comedy if the stakes were not so high. In fact, the fact is this is not 
a serious discussion.
  In May of last year, the majority leader stated: There is no need to 
have a Democratic budget, in my opinion. It would be foolish for us to 
do a budget at this stage. As early as February of this year, it was 
stated by the majority leader that there is no need to bring a budget 
to the Senate floor this year.
  If that is the case, this week's debate is nothing more than a 
political sideshow, and the American people are tired of it. Ever 
wonder why the approval rating of Congress is so low? They hate 
Washington because it spends its time on stunts like this instead of 
working together for the good of the country; pushing votes for 
campaign press releases instead of solving problems.
  The bottom line is if Congress does not do its job, then its Members 
should not get paid. That is exactly what I have proposed with the No 
Budget, No Pay Act. The American people know in an election year too 
many of their representatives in Washington are afraid of the tough 
choices that would help get our Nation on a path of fiscal sanity.
  Most of the people watching the so-called budget debate will witness 
exactly what they have come to expect from Washington: the Republicans 
blaming Democrats, Democrats blaming Republicans. At the end of the 
day, all we will have accomplished is filling another page in the 
Congressional Record.
  Unfortunately, Americans will face the same fiscal disasters they did 
before this debate. Unless we change course, Federal spending per 
household is projected to rise to $34,602 by the year 2022, a 15-
percent increase in one decade.
  The government's own actuaries tell us Medicare is going bankrupt in 
10 years, Social Security one decade later. Both sides should be 
willing to come together to strengthen and preserve these programs for 
future generations instead of simply ignoring the problems because it 
is inconvenient in an election year.
  Our national debt will reach $16 trillion before the end of the year. 
The Federal Government's unfunded obligations will total some $100 
trillion. Yet there will be no budget this year, just like there has 
been no budget for the past 3 years. We cannot look beyond the beltway 
and say this failure of leadership has not had tremendous impact on the 
people we represent.
  National unemployment has registered above 8 percent for the last 38 
months. Nevada has led the Nation in unemployment for more than 2 
years. Almost everyone I speak to in Nevada--businesses, job creators, 
elected officials, and families--speaks of the uncertainty that has 
characterized their lives in this economy.
  We are not moving forward as a Nation, and it is no surprise to these 
no-nonsense folks. They know from everyday life in their businesses and 
in their households that you cannot move forward without a plan. When 
Americans look to Washington, they see no meaningful proposal, no 
viable plan, and no progress.
  There are those who claim the Budget Control Act is a budget, and I 
strongly disagree. This bill does not establish priorities or a path 
forward for our Nation as a real budget should. It does not provide 
certainty, nor does it address many of the pressing fiscal problems we 
have today. If the Budget Control Act were truly a budget, there would 
be no need for this discussion today. It is past time for Congress to 
hold itself accountable.
  That is why I have advocated my No Budget, No Pay Act for nearly a 
year. My legislation calls on the House and Senate to pass a concurrent 
budget resolution and the regular appropriations bills before the 
beginning of each fiscal year. Failure to do so would result in the 
loss of pay until we take our jobs seriously and make these bills our 
legislative priority.

[[Page 6716]]

  The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 already requires Congress to 
pass a budget by April 15. My bill creates an enforcement mechanism to 
further encourage Members of Congress to do their constitutional duty.
  I have spoken on this floor previously about No Budget, No Pay, but I 
believe now is the time to consider whether we are willing to make this 
promise to our constituents. I believe it is more important now than 
ever because the American people are increasingly losing confidence in 
Congress and its ability to deliver solutions.
  No Budget, No Pay is not a silver-bullet solution to our Nation's 
fiscal challenges, but it would indicate that we are hearing the 
concerns of the American people and are willing to participate in the 
dialog necessary to get our country moving again.
  I am pleased that 10 of my Senate colleagues have cosponsored this 
important effort, and others have expressed support for No Budget, No 
Pay on the Senate floor. I am especially grateful to Senators Lieberman 
and Collins for holding a hearing to discuss No Budget, No Pay as a 
meaningful proposal that would help hold Congress accountable to the 
American people. This bipartisan bicameral proposal is worthy of the 
Senate's time if we are serious about regaining the trust of the 
American people whom we are supposed to be representing.
  My colleagues, our Nation can literally no longer afford to survive 
on sound bites and press releases about the importance of budgeting. We 
need to engage in the serious business of budgeting for our Nation's 
future. That work should start today. Sadly, I simply don't believe we 
will make the tough choices necessary until Members of Congress have 
more skin in the game. I will continue calling for the adoption of the 
No Budget, No Pay Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Republican time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate agrees to 
the motion to proceed to H.R. 2072, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2072) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of 
     the United States, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2100

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we move to 
amendment No. 2100 to H.R. 2072.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2100.

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To phase out the authority of the Export-Import Bank of the 
  United States and to require the President to initiate negotiations 
with other major exporting countries to end subsidized export financing 
                               programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TERMINATION OF EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) One-year Extension of Authority.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act or any other provision of law, 
     the authority of the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
     under section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635f) terminates on May 31, 2013.
       (b) Termination of Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act or any other provision of law, on and 
     after June 1, 2013--
       (1) the Export-Import Bank of the United States may not 
     enter into any new agreement for the provision of a loan, a 
     loan guarantee, or insurance, the extension of credit, or any 
     other form of financing;
       (2) the Bank shall continue to operate only to the extent 
     necessary to fulfill the obligations of the Bank pursuant to 
     agreements described in paragraph (1) entered into before 
     June 1, 2013; and
       (3) the President of the Bank shall take such measures as 
     are necessary to wind up the affairs of the Bank, including 
     by reducing the operations of the Bank and the number of 
     employees of the Bank as the number of remaining agreements 
     described in paragraph (1) decreases.
       (c) Repeal of Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other 
     provision of law, effective on the date on which the Export-
     Import Bank of the United States has fulfilled all 
     outstanding obligations of the Bank pursuant to agreements 
     described in subsection (b)(1) entered into before June 1, 
     2013, the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et 
     seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. __. NEGOTIATIONS TO END EXPORT CREDIT FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--The President shall initiate and pursue 
     negotiations with other major exporting countries, including 
     members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
     Development and countries that are not members of that 
     Organisation, to end subsidized export financing programs and 
     other forms of export subsidies.
       (b) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     the President shall submit to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives a report 
     on the progress of the negotiations described in subsection 
     (a) until the President certifies in writing to those 
     committees that all countries that support subsidized export 
     financing programs have agreed to end the support.

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is time that we wind down the Export-
Import Bank. My amendment, No. 2100, would do precisely that. The 
American people cannot be the world's financial backstop. The 
government should not be picking winners and losers. Businesses in Utah 
and across the country are not receiving government help and are 
shutting their doors after decades of serving their communities. We 
should not, through this government, be adding insult to injury by 
using the tax money they contributed to prop up companies overseas.
  We need to end the corporate welfare that distorts the market and 
feeds crony capitalism. The corporations that largely benefit from the 
Ex-Im Bank should have no trouble marshaling their resources to compete 
in today's economy. If they are struggling, then they are most likely 
not deserving of taxpayer help; and if they are turning billions in 
profit, then they clearly do not need taxpayer-subsidized loans.
  Further, government subsidies breed undue favoritism from government 
bureaucrats who control where the money goes. Unless we want more 
Solyndras, we should end the practice immediately.
  Some have suggested that the Ex-Im Bank is good for businesses. What 
is best for American businesses is getting the Federal Government out 
of their way, letting them operate without burdensome government 
regulations and without a complex tax system.
  Having the government pick winners and losers does not make 
industries stronger, it makes them more dependent on subsidies. When 
government is picking who wins, the loser is always the taxpayer.
  We have an opportunity today to reverse the status quo and defend the 
American taxpayer. My amendment winds down the Ex-Im Bank. I urge my 
colleagues to support amendment No. 2100.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in 
the Senate to pass the Export-Import Bank legislation now before us. 
This debate this morning is about jobs, it is about manufacturing jobs, 
and it is about U.S. manufacturing jobs. That is because this bank is 
one of the most powerful tools we have for manufacturing jobs in 
America.
  This is a debate about whether the Members in this Chamber believe 
access to financing is a key tool for U.S. companies to compete on an 
international basis when they are trying to get U.S. manufactured 
products sold

[[Page 6717]]

overseas. In fiscal year 2011 alone, the bank supported nearly 290,000 
export-created jobs in America. Those are the jobs that are going to be 
threatened if the Senate does not act.
  This authority expires on May 31. That is right, 16 days from now. 
And between now and then, the House is in session for only 5 days, so 
we can't afford to take this to the brink one more time with amendments 
passed by the Senate that are gutting amendments. These five amendments 
that will be considered would basically lapse the bank's authority and 
this would put into the debate more uncertainty about our economy.
  We need to act now to renew the bank's charter, and businesses can't 
wait. They need the planning and certainty to hire more people. Failing 
to act will stifle U.S. economic opportunity. That is why nearly two 
dozen Governors, Democrats and Republicans alike, have urged the bank's 
extension, and so has the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association 
of Manufacturers, and the Small Business Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a chart reflecting the jobs supported in each State by Ex-Im financing 
so that Members, if they wish to, can come and look at both the revenue 
that was generated and the jobs that were supported.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         JOBS SUPPORTED THROUGH EX-IM FINANCING BY STATE, FY2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Jobs
                  State                    Export Value \1\   Supported
                                                                 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................        $72,192,614          523
Alaska..................................         $3,793,545           28
Arizona.................................       $170,943,313        1,239
Arkansas................................       $108,584,180          787
California..............................     $3,468,983,437       25,150
Colorado................................       $150,993,779        1,095
Connecticut.............................       $345,097,326        2,502
Delaware................................        $33,517,187          243
District of Columbia....................       $222,874,472        1,616
Florida.................................     $1,054,197,361        7,643
Georgia.................................       $487,633,648        3,535
Hawaii..................................           $201,600            1
Idaho...................................        $12,843,584           93
Illinois................................     $2,322,581,920       16,839
Indiana.................................       $248,668,941        1,803
Iowa....................................        $42,914,160          311
Kansas..................................       $779,197,432        5,649
Kentucky................................        $38,186,699          277
Louisiana...............................       $209,979,110        1,522
Maine...................................        $20,673,669          150
Maryland................................       $220,489,400        1,599
Massachusetts...........................       $565,960,139        4,103
Michigan................................       $320,510,673        2,324
Minnesota...............................       $299,186,062        2,169
Mississippi.............................        $25,040,065          182
Missouri................................       $414,499,691        3,005
Montana.................................         $2,304,000           17
Nebraska................................        $57,942,908          420
Nevada..................................        $31,910,400          231
New Hampshire...........................        $39,842,746          289
New Jersey..............................       $360,580,503        2,614
New Mexico..............................         $5,055,359           37
New York................................       $804,093,389        5,830
North Carolina..........................       $456,429,400        3,309
North Dakota............................        $18,708,353          136
Ohio....................................       $398,413,384        2,888
Oklahoma................................       $235,300,682        1,706
Oregon..................................       $213,921,302        1,551
Pennsylvania............................     $1,353,113,343        9,810
Puerto Rico.............................        $10,555,200           77
Rhode Island............................        $11,877,600           86
South Carolina..........................       $158,092,961        1,146
South Dakota............................        $13,468,905           98
Tennessee...............................       $126,161,932          915
Texas...................................     $4,865,359,960       35,274
Utah....................................        $50,424,234          366
Vermont.................................        $14,406,062          104
Virginia................................       $349,933,601        2,537
Washington..............................    $11,469,897,102       83,157
West Virginia...........................         $5,712,000           41
Wisconsin...............................       $645,545,956        4,680
Wyoming.................................         $1,512,000           11
                                         -------------------------------
    Subtotal by State...................    $33,340,307,290      241,717
                                         -------------------------------
Not Allocated by State \3\..............     $6,307,692,710       45,731
                                         -------------------------------
        TOTAL...........................    $39,648,000,000      287,448
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Export value has been adjusted for inflation.
\2\ Figure based on analysis completed for FY2011 Annual Report, which
  used formula of 7,250 jobs supported by $1 billion in export value.
\3\ Programs such as short-term multi-buyer insurance in which exporter
  not identified at time of authorization.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the default rate on the bank is 
consistently less than 2 percent lower than most commercial lending. I 
am sure we will hear a lot about that during the debate today. But 
since 2005, the Export-Import Bank has returned $3.7 billion to the 
U.S. Treasury, above and beyond the cost of operation. So, yes, my 
colleagues, this is actually something that is making money for the 
Federal Government. Not only is it helping U.S. manufacturers sell 
their products overseas--financing in a way I think is equivalent to 
what the Small Business Administration does; helping to provide a 
certain level of financing that makes deals come through--I think it is 
why we find banks are supportive.
  The money comes back into U.S. taxpayers' pockets and it supports our 
winning in a global situation by getting our products sold. It has been 
incredibly helpful to our economy, with zero cost to the taxpayers, 
and, in fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded a 
4-year reauthorization of the bank would reduce the deficit by up to 
$900 million over 5 years. So the bank works for businesses and it 
works for U.S. taxpayers.
  There is a compromise that is before us. I know it may not be the 
compromise that I or the Senator from South Carolina--who I see is on 
the floor--would have written into the legislation, but nonetheless it 
is a compromise and it is time to act. The reason I say that is because 
so many States also are counting on the Export-Import Bank, just as 
Washington State is.
  Pennsylvania, for example, has over $1.4 billion in exports and 9,800 
jobs related to the Export-Import Bank; Massachusetts, with $566 
million. This is from the annual report of the Ex-Im Bank in 2011. So 
they had $566 million of economic revenue generated in Massachusetts 
and over 4,000 jobs. Why? Because we helped Massachusetts exporters get 
access to capital so they could sell their products overseas and win in 
the international marketplace. Texas, another example, with $4.9 
billion in exports, and 35,274 jobs.
  These are jobs America needs. This is a global economy in which 
America needs to be able to compete, and getting access to capital so 
that products can be sold is a critically important issue.
  Florida, another great example of the support of the Ex-Im Bank, had 
$1.1 billion in exports and over 7,643 jobs. So that State has been 
another big winner; the State of North Carolina, $456 million in 
exports and 3,309 jobs; and Ohio, another example of manufacturers and 
businesses, with $398 million in exports and 2,888 jobs.
  While there are many people who would like to say this program should 
be discontinued--and I am sure some of my colleagues are not in favor 
of it because there are many programs they wish to get rid of--I would 
say this is a program that is good for the U.S. taxpayers. The Ex-Im 
Bank has generated $3.7 billion for U.S. taxpayers since 2005.
  Again, what is this debate about? The underlying amendments my 
colleagues are offering are trying to gut the Ex-Im Bank. They simply 
don't like it, and they want to get rid of it or say it is not a viable 
tool. I guess because one in four jobs in Washington State is based on 
trade, I know how critically important it is. Whether we are talking 
about agricultural products or selling airplanes or selling music 
stands, as one company we saw, or selling grain silos, companies need 
to be able to compete in the international marketplace and they need to 
be able to get sales for their products. This has been a very viable 
and important tool for them.
  Some of my colleagues have previously raised concerns about the 
bank's transparency and oversight, and these concerns have been heard 
and addressed in this legislation. I wish to talk about the five ways 
this new compromise bill addresses those concerns.
  There is more oversight. Under the amended bill, we would have a 
quarterly report on its default rate, and the first of these reports 
would be due September of this year. The bank has historically 
maintained a low default rate of less than 2 percent, but under this 
provision, if the default rate reaches 2 percent or higher, the bank 
will have to develop a plan to fix the problem and report to Congress 
within 1 month. If the default rate stays above 2 percent for more than 
6 months, they will be subject to a review of an independent auditor.
  These are very viable and important additions to the legislation. Not 
only would the auditor be there to help fix what was going on, he would 
have the oversight for anything that was involved with the bank they 
needed to report on. So there is less risk.
  The second change to the underlying bill is the Government 
Accountability Office must study and report back to

[[Page 6718]]

the bank safeguards that prevent it from taking loans that are too 
risky. Again, since the bank has had a historically low default rate, 
we are happy to add this language, but it is another layer of 
protection on something that is performing and performing well. But as 
I say, we are happy to add that to the legislation.
  More public input. The bank will have to open a public comment period 
for transactions greater than $100 million and it will have to notify 
Congress about these transactions so there is more transparency on what 
some consider the bigger financial loans in which the bank is involved.
  Fourth, we have added more accountability. There is an annual report 
where the bank has to justify the need of every transaction--every 
transaction. That way the public will know if the bank has acted 
because a private lender would not have or if it acted in response to 
foreign export credit agencies.
  And then fifth, the Treasury must engage nations in discussions about 
the need for export financing worldwide. I know some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle would hope the President would end all 
export financing and leave that discussion at the World Trade 
Organization. But I would ask my colleagues, what is the difference 
between this and the Small Business Administration that provides an 
opportunity, a bridging of capital between small businesses and the 
opportunities to join with private financing to make deals happen.
  As I said earlier, I live in a State where we know how beneficial 
export markets are to our products--whether we are speaking of cherries 
or apples or airplanes or a variety of new technologies--and these 
products are winning the day in the international marketplace. They are 
also creating jobs. So for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who wish to end this program or say it ought to be ended on an 
international basis, we are happy to hear what the world community 
wants to debate and discuss on this basis, but I would ask why, in the 
moment of crisis in our financial institutions, when one of the 
supposedly most risk-averse institutions can't figure out why it lost 
$2 billion, would we want small businesses across America to pay the 
price for the fact they can't get financing of their products sold in 
an international marketplace? We have to wake up and understand this is 
about helping small businesses and helping them win the day for 
products that are created in the United States--created in the United 
States and sold abroad.
  This compromise legislation that is offered today is the best path 
forward. These amendments are an attempt to gut the underlying bill and 
to stop the authorization of the bank and have it curtailed. As I said, 
we only have about 5 legislative days, given the House's schedule, to 
get this done. Some of my colleagues want to tell all those businesses 
I mentioned in all those States--Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and 
others--that we don't know anymore whether this program exists and so 
let's actually stop the funding and lose jobs.
  I know there are people in my State--such as Lawrence Stone from 
SCAFCO or Bill Perdue from Sonico--who gave me the message the American 
people want us to focus on creating jobs and supporting businesses. 
They want a program like this to continue and they want the jobs it 
creates for their communities.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will gladly yield and let Senator Corker 
go ahead of me--I understand the Senator has an amendment to offer--
with the understanding I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes after he is 
done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 2102

  Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina and certainly the 
Senator from Washington State. I want to say I put my credentials for 
supporting exports up against anybody here, and I think the purpose of 
our being in this body is to try to create good policies.
  I have an amendment I wish to call up. It is amendment No. 2102, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Corker] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2102.

  Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Export-Import Bank of the United States to 
  provide financing only for transactions subsidized by export credit 
 agencies of other countries or for which private sector financing is 
   unavailable or prohibitively expensive and to require the Bank to 
  maintain a ratio of capital to the outstanding principal balance of 
         loans and loan guarantees of not less than 10 percent)

       Strike section 25 and insert the following:

     SEC. 25. LIMITATION ON FINANCING BY THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES TO TRANSACTIONS SUBSIDIZED BY 
                   OTHER COUNTRIES OR FOR WHICH PRIVATE SECTOR 
                   FINANCING IS UNAVAILABLE OR PROHIBITIVELY 
                   EXPENSIVE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et seq.) or any 
     other provision of law, the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States may not provide any financing (including any 
     guarantee, insurance, or extension of credit, or 
     participation in any extension of credit) for the exportation 
     of any article unless the Bank certifies to Congress in 
     writing that--
       (1) an export credit agency of a foreign country is 
     providing financing for the exportation of a substantially 
     similar article from that country; or
       (2) private sector financing for the exportation of the 
     article is not available or is prohibitively expensive.
       (b) Additional Information Required.--If the Export-Import 
     Bank of the United States certifies under subsection (a)(2) 
     that private sector financing for the exportation of an 
     article is not available or is prohibitively expensive, the 
     Bank shall also include in the certification the following:
       (1) An explanation of why private sector financing is not 
     available or is prohibitively expensive.
       (2) An explanation of how financing by the Bank for the 
     exportation of the article does not put the United States at 
     a substantial risk of loss.
       (3) If private sector financing is available but 
     prohibitively expensive, an assessment of the difference 
     between the cost of private sector financing and the cost of 
     financing provided by the Bank.
       (c) Report on Regulatory Barriers.--For any transaction 
     relating to the exportation of an article financed by the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States after certifying 
     under subsection (a)(2) that private sector financing is 
     unavailable, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to 
     Congress a report that--
       (1) assesses the extent to which private sector financing 
     is unavailable as a result of excessive regulation of 
     domestic financial institutions by the Federal Government or 
     the obligations of the United States under international 
     agreements relating to risk management by financial 
     institutions; and
       (2) makes recommendations for eliminating the barriers to 
     private sector financing identified under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 26. CAPITAL RATIO REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 
                   OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Export-Import Bank of the United States shall 
     maintain a capital ratio of not less than 10 percent.
       (b) Capital Ratio Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``capital ratio'' means the ratio of the capital of the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States to the total 
     outstanding principal balance of all loans made or guaranteed 
     by the Bank.

     SEC. 27. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in section 9(b), this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the earlier 
     of June 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Again, this 
amendment is very simple and it does two things I would think the 
Senator from Washington especially would support, after all we have 
gone through, and especially after her alluding to some of the most 
recent developments in the financial system. I hope this amendment will 
receive broad support in this body.
  The Ex-Im Bank is set up to finance transactions that cannot be 
financed in the private sector. That is the purpose for its existence. 
So, No. 1, what this

[[Page 6719]]

amendment will do is to cause the Ex-Im Bank to certify there is no 
private sector financing--or at least no private sector financing at a 
reasonable cost--before any loan goes through the Ex-Im Bank.
  The second piece I think is very important. The way the Ex-Im Bank is 
set up right now, there are no capital requirements. The Senator from 
Washington was just talking about something that happened at JPMorgan. 
Fortunately, we have put in place since the financial crisis very 
strong capital requirements at our financial institutions, and what 
that has done is to make them healthy and to cause them to be able to 
withstand things that may happen as relates to default rates or other 
failures.
  The Ex-Im Bank, believe it or not, is set up to finance things that 
no other bank will finance, and yet it has no capital requirements 
other than having to maintain $1 billion. So they are able to loan, per 
this new legislation, $140 billion but they only have to have $1 
billion in capital reserves, which means you are creating with this 
mechanism 140-to-1 leverage ratios.
  What we have gone through with our entire financial system is a 
process to make sure we have adequate capital. What our amendment does 
is to require that the Ex-Im Bank adhere to the normal sound financial 
practices we want our financial institutions across our country to 
adhere to by establishing a 10-percent capital base.
  Again, I think this is a very good government amendment. We don't 
want to see the same happen with Ex-Im Bank that we have seen happen 
with Fannie, with Freddie, with so many of our institutions in this 
country that did not have proper capital reserves.
  I urge strong support for this amendment which will make the Ex-Im 
Bank something that ensures--or hopefully helps ensure--that our U.S. 
taxpayers are never in a situation where we have to come to the aid of 
this institution because it hasn't reserved properly, it doesn't have 
the proper capital standards in place, that I think people in this body 
on both sides of the aisle have overwhelmingly supported for the 
private sector.
  I would hate to see us be in a situation where we want to create 
something in government that risks taxpayers' money, when we have just 
gone through a process of understanding that it is very important for 
the financial institutions of our country to have appropriate capital 
standards. Here we are getting ready to pass legislation on this floor 
which, I am sorry, has almost no capital standards in place because you 
only have to have $1 billion--that is all--at the Ex-Im Bank, $1 
billion against a $140 billion loan base. I think anybody here thinking 
about this understands those standards are not nearly appropriate, and 
I hope this amendment will receive overwhelming support.
  It is my sense that if we pass this, the House would easily pass 
this. Contrary to what the Senator from Washington was saying, I think 
this would make the legislation better and, my sense is, receive 
overwhelming support in the House if added to it.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from South Carolina for 
his tremendous courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the compromise that 
was outlined by Senator Cantwell.
  Basically, 6 years ago the Congress of the United States by voice 
vote reauthorized the Export-Import Bank. If you are in business, like 
Boeing and GE, and thousands of other companies out there that are 
making products in the United States and selling them overseas, the 
idea that the Congress would, by voice vote, reauthorize the bank had 
to make you believe that this model of doing business would be made 
available to you. Here we are, later down the road, a lot of concern 
about the bank, and some people actually want to do away with it.
  I understand free markets pretty well, and I would love to live in a 
world where no country interfered in the marketplace at all and the 
best products would win based on a level playing field. But why do we 
have the Export-Import Bank? It is about 70 years old. There is a long 
record here. Products made in America and sold overseas--sometimes 
because of the volatile nature of the region in question traditional 
banks won't lend money. What happened is about 70 years ago we created 
a bank to help us export products, and that bank, the Export-Import 
Bank, as Senator Cantwell said, makes money, doesn't lose money, and it 
has been a sound way to get American-made products into the 
international marketplace.
  Here is the reality: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, 
Brazil, China, and India all have export banks of their own. The G-7 
countries we competed against between 2006 and 2010 doubled the amount 
of Ex-Im financing available in their countries. This is what American 
businesses are competing against.
  Our good friend up North, Canada, is one-tenth our size. The Canadian 
Ex-Im Bank did $100 billion worth of financing for Canadian-made 
products last year, compared to $32 billion in support of American 
manufacturers.
  The only area of our economy that has been strong lately is exports. 
So imagine this: America does away with the Export-Import Bank. All of 
the countries I just described have their banks available to their 
manufacturers. Boeing makes planes in Washington and in South Carolina. 
Eight out of ten planes being manufactured in Charleston, SC, by 
Boeing, the 787s, are sold based on export-import financing, 8 out of 
10. That is why they needed a second line of production. They are 
competing against Airbus. France has three Export-Import Banks. China's 
Export-Import Bank is larger than those of the United States, Germany, 
Canada, and Britain combined.
  It is one thing to do reform; it is another to unilaterally 
surrender. It is one thing to lead the world; it is another to put the 
people who make products in America at risk unnecessarily. The 
legislation in the House did compel the President, the Department of 
Commerce, and Treasury to try to get these Export-Import Banks wound 
down over time. If we could do that, great, because I think the 
American workers and the American companies can compete anywhere in the 
world on a level playing field. At the end of the day, this is about 
whether we are going to unilaterally surrender. We are weeks away.
  Senator Corker has a good amendment, a decent amendment, but it 
doesn't quite get us to where we need to be at this late hour. One part 
of this amendment is that you can't make a loan under the Export-Import 
Bank until the company proves that the other countries in question are 
not offering loans in that area. That is pretty hard to do when 
countries such as China are not very transparent.
  This amendment is billed as good government, and I know his 
motivations are sound. He is not ideologically against the bank. But at 
this late hour, it will bring the legislation down. And, quite frankly, 
the second prong of what he is proposing I think is a real burden to 
put on American businesses at a time when it is hard enough already to 
create jobs in America.
  To those who want to end the bank without other countries doing so, I 
think you would be doing a great disservice to people in this country 
who are selling products overseas. In my State alone, you would be 
destroying the ability of Boeing Company to grow in South Carolina. GE 
makes gas turbines in Greenville, SC. One-third of those turbines made 
in Greenville are sold through ex-im financing. If you can get the 
other parts of the world to do this, count me in. Until we do it 
together, I am going to allow this bank to stay in business because it 
makes money, it doesn't lose money. There is a difference between 
leading the world and putting your companies at risk in a world based 
on reality, and the reality is that export-import financing by our 
competitive nations is growing, it is not being reduced.
  This bill that passed the House was 330 votes. We live in a time in 
Congress where you can hardly declare Sunday as a holiday, but 330 
Members of the

[[Page 6720]]

House voted to extend this bank for 3 years with reforms. Count me in 
the reform camp.
  Some people say this bank has kind of gotten out of its lane and is 
making loans that are not traditionally export-import loans. I agree 
with that. Some say the bank is not transparent enough. I agree with 
that. The bottom line is it has been reformed; not as much as some 
would wish, but it definitely has been reformed.
  Sixty-two percent of the Republican Conference in the House voted to 
reauthorize this, so I want to acknowledge Representative Cantor, 
Representative Hoyer, Tim Scott, and my delegation, who have tried to 
bring about reform. At the end of the day, the Senate now is receiving 
a product that went through the House, a lot of giving and taking. They 
produced a compromise, as Senator Cantwell said, that would be 
different than I would have written, but it truly is reform. It allows 
a 3-year extension of the bank at $140 billion with reforms that are, 
quite frankly, I think common sense, and 62 percent of the House 
Republicans supported this. The tea party was split.
  At the end of the day we have a decision to make as a Senate: Are we 
going to allow this bank to fail, or are we going to allow the bank to 
stay in business under a new way of doing business? I think it would be 
a travesty and a detrimental event to the economy of this country if 
this bank were to go out of business and the banks of everybody we 
compete with are doubling in size. If you want to grow the footprint in 
America of selling products made in America overseas, this bank has a 
niche. Where you cannot find traditional financing, this bank allows 
American products to be sold, and I think it is a very sound business 
practice. The bank is making money.
  The bank has been around for 70 years and there are no subprime 
mortgages here. This is about selling American products to a willing 
buyer overseas where you can't find traditional financing. Our friends 
in China--sometimes they are not our friends; they manipulate their 
currency, they steal intellectual property--their bank is going like 
gangbusters. The last thing I am going to do with my vote is take 
American companies that are struggling to make it, creating jobs in 
America through selling products overseas, and put them at a 
disadvantage against the Chinese or any other country that is doing 
business. We will wind down these things together or we will stay in 
business to allow those in America to make products and sell them 
overseas.
  From a South Carolina perspective, this is a very big deal. It was a 
big deal to get Boeing to come to South Carolina. This is a request by 
Boeing, and many other small businesses such as Mount Vernon Mills, to 
keep the program around.
  I will end where I started. Six years ago, those people in the 
manufacturing community had the bank reauthorized by voice vote. They 
set up a business model assuming the bank was going to be around, 
because nobody even objected to it enough to get a rollcall. Six years 
later, we can't make wild, radical changes. We have made reforms. But 
the worst thing we can do is to have told the community 6 years ago by 
voice vote this bank will be in place and 6 years later do away with it 
when no one else is doing away with their banks. That makes no sense to 
me. That is not good government. That, to me, is unilateral surrender. 
I didn't want to unilaterally disarm when we were competing against the 
Soviets in the Cold War, and I sure as heck don't want to unilaterally 
disarm in a world economy very much interconnected.
  These amendments, most of them, are designed to wind down the bank. 
They are ideologically driven. Senator Corker is trying to make it 
better, but there is a component of his amendment that I think would 
make it very difficult for our companies to get a loan. At the end of 
the day, we need to vote these amendments down and pass the House 
product.
  To the Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, you worked 
this out among yourselves in a way that I think the Senate should 
embrace and endorse.
  And to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, we are allowing votes on 
an important piece of legislation. The Senate is operating in the best 
traditions of the Senate; people have their say, people get to vote.
  Here is my say: Bring your amendments to the floor. I respect your 
ideological position. I respect the idea of the free markets and where 
we want to go. But I am asking my colleagues not to put American 
businesses at risk at a time when our economy is on its knees. Do not 
destroy this bank at a time when competitor nations are doubling the 
size of theirs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from South 
Carolina coming down to talk about his important tool for U.S. 
manufacturers and why it is important in his State and why we need to 
get on to the business of passing this House legislation that was a 
compromise that involved many people and, as my colleague from South 
Carolina stated, a very robust vote out of the House of 
Representatives.
  I also wish to say a few words about my colleague's amendment, 
Senator Corker. I will trust what my colleague from South Carolina 
says, that the amendment may be seen as a reform of the system, well 
intended, but I can tell you, it will have very adverse effects.
  The Corker amendment basically is calling for a 10-percent capital 
ratio requirement. It is not based on any fact or reason. The bank has 
had a default rate of less than 2 percent--1.5 percent. So raising the 
reserve ratio would have a very adverse effect on the bank itself, and 
it would quadruple the reserves and basically cause problems with the 
bank and how it is leveraged.
  If this is an issue about reform, there are many reforms in the 
underlying bill. To the provision that would say you would have to 
verify, if you are an individual business, that you can't get 
financing, I have read the Senator's amendment. I am not sure how you 
would prove that. It is not clear from the legislation. Does that mean 
you would have to survey every time the ex-im program was implemented 
for a business?
  Let's say SCAFCO in Spokane, WA, which is a grain silo producer that 
is selling silos in many different parts of the world--every time they 
wanted to get financing for one of those silos, what would they do? 
Would they petition five banks in a region? Would they petition 100 
banks in a region? I want people to understand what that competition is 
like.
  Let's pretend that SCAFCO, as I said, which makes large grain 
elevators and is selling products all over the world and is one of the 
world leaders, and we have an Ex-Im Bank requirement that says they 
have to prove there is no financing available, and they are selling a 
lot of product in South America, in Africa, in Asia. Now somebody else 
says, You know what. I can get financing for the product out of Russia 
or I can get financing for the product out of China and I don't have 
that same requirement, so I am not going to buy from you, I am going to 
buy from them.
  That is what you are doing. You are basically hamstringing American 
competitors in an international marketplace by not allowing them the 
financing tools. Of course the bank has to show they can't get 
financing, but this new provision puts an undue burden on these 
individuals--because of the language and how vague it is, how are they 
ever going to prove that there isn't someone there?
  Instead of hamstringing American businesses, why not allow those 
American businesses to continue under this legislation that, as my 
colleague from South Carolina said, has been around for decades and 
been very effective? And we are including more transparency.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Corker amendment because of its 
requirements on capital ratio that they do not need and, second, on an 
ability to prohibit the financing based on a clause that I don't even 
know how it can be met. My colleagues from States that are using this 
program will understand that it will be very hard for our

[[Page 6721]]

businesses to continue to compete with such a requirement.
  I know my colleague Senator Lee was here earlier. The Lee amendment 
basically would out-and-out defund the Export-Import financing program. 
I get that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe 
we should not have this program. I think it has been a very important 
tool for U.S. companies to win in their sales of U.S. products overseas 
and, as I said, creates thousands of jobs. I do not think the amendment 
of Senator Lee, which would basically abolish the bank as of September 
30, 2013, is a good way to go.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 2103

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I now call up Vitter amendment No. 2103, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2103.

  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the requirement that the Export-Import Bank of the 
United States not make or guarantee loans that are subordinate to other 
loans, to restrict financing of certain fossil fuel projects in foreign 
   countries, and to prohibit financing of renewable energy products 
                   manufactured in foreign countries)

       Strike section 8 and insert the following:

     SEC. 8. NONSUBORDINATION REQUIREMENT.

       Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635), as amended by section 7 of this Act, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Nonsubordination Requirement.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Bank shall not make or guarantee 
     a loan that is subordinate to any other loan.''.

     SEC. 8A. PROHIBITION ON FINANCING OF FOSSIL FUEL PROJECTS IN 
                   FOREIGN COUNTRIES THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY 
                   SIMILAR TO CERTAIN FOSSIL FUEL PROJECTS IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) Identification of Certain Domestic Fossil Fuel 
     Projects.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States shall identify projects involving the production, 
     refining, or transportation of fossil fuels in the United 
     States that could benefit from the provision of a loan, loan 
     guarantee, or other form of financing by a Federal agency.
       (b) Prohibition on Financing of Certain Fossil Fuel 
     Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, on and after the date that is 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Bank shall not provide any 
     guarantee, insurance, or extension of credit (or participate 
     in the extension of credit) with respect to any project in a 
     foreign country that the Bank determines is substantially 
     similar to a project identified under subsection (a).
       (2) Certification required.--If, on and after the date that 
     is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States provides financing 
     with respect to a project involving the production, refining, 
     or transportation of fossil fuels in a foreign country, the 
     Bank shall certify to Congress that to the knowledge of the 
     Bank there are no projects in the United States that are 
     substantially similar to the project in the foreign country 
     that could benefit from the provision of a loan, loan 
     guarantee, or other form of financing by a Federal agency.
       (c) Definition of Fossil Fuel.--In this section, the term 
     ``fossil fuel'' means natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any 
     form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from natural 
     gas, petroleum, or coal.

     SEC. 8B. PROHIBITION ON, AND REPEAL OF MINIMUM INVESTMENT 
                   GOALS FOR, FINANCING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Prohibition on Financing of Certain Renewable Energy 
     Projects.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States shall not provide any 
     guarantee, insurance, or extension of credit (or participate 
     in the extension of credit) with respect to any project that 
     involves the manufacture of renewable energy products in a 
     foreign country.
       (b) Repeal of Minimum Investment Goal for Financing of 
     Renewable Energy Projects.--Section 534(d) of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1990 (12 U.S.C. 635g note) is repealed.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is borne of real 
frustration that a lot of folks have faced over the last few years, 
particularly in my State of Louisiana. As you know, we have had a rough 
time, particularly following the BP disaster.
  First there was that real environmental disaster, which was a shock 
to our system and our ecology. But second, and of perhaps even more 
lasting impact, there was the economic hit that was magnified 
enormously when the Obama administration, in my opinion, overreacted 
and instituted a full-blown moratorium on production drilling--drilling 
in the Gulf of Mexico. That formal moratorium was ended in late 2010, 
but a de facto moratorium continued for many months. Even now there is 
a permanent logjam that has permitting at a much lower pace than before 
the BP disaster.
  This is a broader problem because, at least off the coast of 
Louisiana, we are producing some energy. In many other places of the 
country where we have an abundance of energy, we are not allowed to get 
it because this Federal Government, particularly under this Obama 
administration, puts well over 90 percent of our domestic resources off 
limits.
  In the midst of everything that was going on in the gulf, in the 
midst of that moratorium shutting down jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, 
President Obama traveled to Brazil and he said that the United States 
wanted to be a tremendous partner and cheerleader of the development of 
Brazil's offshore industry. I have to tell you, that was like rubbing 
salt in the wounds of tens of thousands of oilfield workers and others 
who were suffering because of the Obama administration policy here in 
this country really discouraging energy development. The way President 
Obama proposed to be a strong supporter and partner and cheerleader of 
Brazilian offshore development was through an Export-Import Bank loan.
  There are many of these sorts of loans. In August 2009--talking about 
Brazil, the case I mentioned--the Wall Street Journal reported in an 
editorial that ``the U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to 
Brazil's State owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of 
the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos 
Basin near Rio de Janeiro.'' Again, the Export-Import Bank approved a 
$2 billion loan to aid Brazilian oil production. That is what President 
Obama was cheering and encouraging and making happen. It has happened 
other places as well. Again, the Ex-Im Bank specifically approved a 
$2.84 billion loan and loan guarantee to a subsidiary of Colombia's 
national oil company. This money was intended to expand and upgrade an 
oil refinery in Cartagena, Colombia. In 2011 the Ex-Im Bank again 
authorized $1 billion for Pemex, Mexico's national oil and gas company.
  Here we have this Federal Government, through the Ex-Im Bank, 
financing energy production overseas at the same time as this Federal 
Government tries to shut down and make difficult a lot of that activity 
here at home. That is the frustration that produced this amendment, No. 
2103. This amendment is simple. It simply says that Ex-Im Bank is not 
going to provide those loans or loan guarantees related to fossil fuel 
development in foreign countries if there are similar projects in this 
country that are not getting comparable help. It is not suggesting that 
the Ex-Im Bank is going to participate directly in projects in this 
country. It simply says first things first--American jobs, American 
energy, American production. So we are not going to finance the world 
to produce energy when we create obstacles right here at home to do the 
same.
  The last several years have proved the need for this sort of 
commonsense provision, in my opinion. President Obama traveling to 
Brazil, ballyhooing the development of their industry while his 
moratorium and other policies substantially shut down our own here in 
the United States, proves the need for this commonsense amendment.
  I urge all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this 
Vitter amendment No. 2103. Again, it is very simple, very logical, and 
pure common sense. Before the Ex-Im Bank uses U.S. taxpayer money to 
fund, to finance the

[[Page 6722]]

guarantee of oil and gas and other energy development overseas in 
foreign countries, we are going to look here at home to see if similar 
projects exist and are they getting any similar help or inducement from 
the Federal Government.
  I urge support of this amendment as a way to move forward in a 
commonsense way on this reauthorization.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to address the Vitter amendment, 
No. 2103. In speaking in opposition to that amendment, as I said, like 
all these amendments that are up for us to vote on today, I believe 
they are detrimental not only to the Export-Import financing program 
but to the compromise that has been worked out by Republicans and 
Democrats in the House of Representatives in the legislation that is 
being supported by the chamber of commerce, U.S. manufacturers, a 
bipartisan list of Governors, and many businesses across America.
  The reason the Vitter amendment is a horrible idea, actually, is that 
the amendment would basically cut off or curtail American companies in 
their ability to compete on energy projects on a worldwide basis; that 
is, it would eliminate the bank's current 10 percent goal for renewable 
energy projects. This is a longstanding requirement that has been 
incorporated into the Senate Foreign Operations bill. Why someone would 
oppose it here I am not sure.
  As somebody who knows a lot about energy and works on energy all the 
time, I can tell you that one of the goals we have as a country should 
be for the United States to win in the energy debate. Look at what a 
tremendous market opportunity new energy solutions are for our economy, 
for the worldwide economy. It is somewhere from $4 trillion to $6 
trillion. A lot of people like to talk about the Internet and the great 
things on the Internet. By comparison, it was somewhere between $2 and 
$4 trillion. This is an economic opportunity way beyond that.
  When you look at what China is doing, they need to invest $3.7 
trillion by 2030 in order to build 1,300 gigawatts of new electricity-
generating capacity. The Chinese Government alone needs to spend $3.7 
trillion on energy. My colleague from Louisiana wants to say: Let's 
hamstring U.S. companies--those that might have a solution to some of 
China's energy needs--from getting the appropriate financing so they 
can be successful in this program. To me, it is wrongheaded in the fact 
that we want to be selling to China, as I said, just because in the 
Northwest we already know what China is as a market. We sell them 
software, we sell them airplanes, we sell them coffee--we sell them 
lots of things. We understand they are a market. To curtail the 
solutions U.S. companies are working on, whether it is battery 
technology or smart grid technology or solutions for a whole range of 
products--you could even say nuclear power solutions or other clean 
energy source solutions--all of these things would be curtailed under 
the Vitter amendment.
  We do not want to go backward. Not only does the United States want 
to be a leader in energy solutions in the United States, the United 
States should have the goal of being an energy winner in the 
international marketplace, growing jobs through selling solutions that 
we think can be quite successful in and around the developing world and 
in China.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to make sure we get 
this bank. As I said regarding the Export-Import financing program, we 
have about 5 legislative days to give the predictability and certainty 
American businesses would like to see in making sure U.S. manufacturers 
win in a global marketplace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I rise today in support of H.R. 2072, 
the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012. After too much 
delay, it is time for the Senate to pass this bill.
  The Export-Import Bank supports nearly 290,000 jobs a year, assists 
thousands of American businesses, and helps reduce the Federal budget 
deficit. It shouldn't be surprising, then, to hear that the bank has 
the approval of labor unions, the chamber of commerce, the Business 
Roundtable, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
  Indeed, the bank is supported by a wide majority in both Houses of 
Congress. The bill before us today passed with an overwhelming vote of 
330 to 93 in the House of Representatives last week as Republicans and 
Democrats came together in support of truly bipartisan legislation. 
When we passed a similar bill out of the Senate Banking Committee last 
year, it had unanimous bipartisan support.
  Despite the urgent need for passage of the bill, there are several 
Republican amendments. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against 
those amendments and pass this bill without delay. We are at the finish 
line today with a bill that has already been approved in the House and 
has bipartisan support in the Senate. Unless we pass this bill, the Ex-
Im Bank's authorization will lapse on May 31 and nearly 300,000 
American jobs will be at risk. Unless we pass this bill, American 
exporters will be put at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors, 
who, in many cases, receive far greater assistance from their own 
nations' export credit agencies.
  Let's come together and pass this bipartisan bill and score a victory 
for the hundreds of thousands of American workers whose jobs are 
supported by the Ex-Im Bank.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments and support 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank today so we can send this 
bill to the President and have it signed into law without delay.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2104

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2104, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, for himself, Mr. 
     DeMint and Mr. Lee, proposes an amendment numbered 2104.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask that the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit an increase in the lending authority of the 
 Export-Import Bank of the United States to more than $100,000,000,000 
 until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the Secretary has 
  initiated international negotiations to eliminate export financing 
programs and to prohibit an increase in that lending authority to more 
   than $120,000,000,000 until a multilateral agreement to eliminate 
             export financing programs has been completed)

       Strike section 3 and insert the following:

     SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON OUTSTANDING LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND 
                   INSURANCE.

       Section 6(a)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635e(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the comma at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) during fiscal year 2012 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year, $100,000,000,000, except that--
       ``(i) the applicable amount for each of fiscal years 2013 
     and 2014 shall be $120,000,000,000 if--

       ``(I) the Bank has submitted a report as required by 
     section 4(a) of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 
     2012;
       ``(II) the rate calculated under section 8(g)(1) of this 
     Act is less than 2 percent for

[[Page 6723]]

     the quarter ending with the beginning of the fiscal year, or 
     for any quarter in the fiscal year; and
       ``(III) the Secretary of the Treasury has certified in 
     writing to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives that the Secretary has 
     initiated the negotiations required by section 11(a) of the 
     Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012; and

       ``(ii) notwithstanding clause (i), the applicable amount 
     for fiscal year 2014 shall be $140,000,000,000 if--

       ``(I) the rate calculated under section 8(g)(1) of this Act 
     is less than 2 percent for the quarter ending with the 
     beginning of the fiscal year, or for any quarter in the 
     fiscal year;
       ``(II) the Bank has submitted a report as required by 
     subsection (b) of section 5 of the Export-Import Bank 
     Reauthorization Act of 2012, except that the preceding 
     provisions of this subclause shall not apply if the 
     Comptroller General has not submitted the report required by 
     subsection (a) of such section 5 on or before July 1, 2013; 
     and
       ``(III) the Secretary of the Treasury has submitted to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House 
     of Representatives the text of a multilateral agreement to 
     eliminate subsidized export financing programs (including 
     aircraft export credit financing) agreed to by--

       ``(aa) each country that is a member of the Organisation 
     for Economic Co-operation and Development; and
       ``(bb) each country that is not a member of that 
     Organisation that, during fiscal year 2012 or any fiscal year 
     thereafter, provided export financing in excess of 
     $50,000,000,000.''.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the 
reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I think it is a very important measure to begin the process 
of phasing out a very unfortunate practice that we participate in, as 
do many of our trading partners, which is the active taxpayer 
subsidization of exports.
  I want to be very clear. There is a very real risk that is carried by 
American taxpayers, and that risk is systematically underpriced. The 
fact is the Ex-Im Bank extends loans and provides guarantees to 
countries and companies buying American exports. It provides those 
loans and those loan guarantees under terms that are not available in 
the private sector.
  There is a reason those terms are not available in the private 
sector. It is because the private sector necessarily requires full 
compensation for whatever risks they take, and there is a risk in any 
loan. The Ex-Im Bank underprices these loans systematically, and that 
is why it is important, that is why it exists, and that is why it does 
business that the private sector cannot win away from the Ex-Im Bank. 
The Ex-Im Bank necessarily and systematically underprices the risks 
that taxpayers are on the hook for. This is what many of us object to, 
the risk that the taxpayers are forced to bear.
  In addition to enforcing taxpayers to incur this risk, it is quite 
unfair to American companies that have to compete with the foreign 
companies that get the subsidized financing. This isn't just 
theoretical. This happens all the time. Some years ago I was involved 
in a dispute because the Ex-Im Bank was going to finance the 
acquisition of equipment by a foreign--I think it was a Chinese 
steelmaker--which would enable them to make steel at lower prices than 
American steelmakers could make because the American companies wouldn't 
be able to obtain this equipment with the subsidy that the Chinese 
companies could obtain through the Ex-Im Bank.
  More recently is the case of Delta Airlines, which has observed that 
the price they have to pay for jets is higher than the price paid by 
other countries that are operating competing routes but buying their 
aircraft through the subsidies of the Ex-Im Bank.
  In 2008 President Obama, referring to Ex-Im Bank, said this is 
``little more than a fund for corporate welfare.'' I think that is a 
little bit harsh. I understand how this has come to be, I understand 
why it has been extended, and I understand why people believe we have 
to subsidize our exports. It is because other countries around the 
world subsidize theirs. In other words, if our German and French and 
Chinese and Russian taxpayers are made to take a risk in subsidizing 
the sales of their manufacturers, then our taxpayers ought to take a 
similar risk.
  I think there is a logical solution. Let's require the administration 
to sit down with our trading competitors and negotiate a mutual 
phaseout of all of these export subsidies. Frankly, it is in 
everybody's interest. We could have a level playing field on which no 
taxpayers are subject to this risk, no taxpayers are asked to subsidize 
the sales of private companies, and I think that is what we ought to 
do. This is what my amendment would accomplish.
  My amendment says we will go ahead with the reauthorization of the 
Ex-Im Bank, but the first increase in the lending limit we are 
currently at--the bump-up of $20 billion that is contemplated in this 
bill that has passed the House--would be contingent upon the 
administration informing Congress that they have begun the process of 
negotiating a phaseout of all export subsidies.
  I recognize this phaseout would not occur immediately but would be a 
gradual process that would happen over time. So under my amendment the 
second increase would only occur when the administration came back and 
informed Congress that they had, in fact, reached an agreement with our 
leading trading partners on a framework that would phase out 
subsidization of exports.
  I think this is a very sensible way to deal with the only compelling 
argument I have heard in favor of forcing taxpayers to continue to take 
this risk; that is, well, everyone does it, so we must. Since that is 
the only reason, then let's start the process of persuading everyone 
else not to do it. We have tremendous leverage in both bilateral and 
multinational trade negotiations of all sorts. There are ways that the 
administration--if it makes this issue a priority--can persuade our 
trading partners that this is the right direction to go.
  Each of our trading partners has their own constituency of taxpayers 
who would probably rather not be forced to subsidize this process just 
as we do. I think this amendment does it in a careful fashion that 
allows businesses to continue for now provided we start in a different 
direction, a direction that will avoid continuing to put taxpayers at 
risk.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment numbered 2104.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of 
Senator Toomey's amendment and to point out some of the things about 
the Ex-Im Bank that are important for the taxpayers to know.
  As a businessman I know if I can get a guaranteed loan, I would take 
it in a second. I don't blame companies that are interested in lower 
rate financing. But as Congressmen and Senators and as the President of 
the United States, our job is to protect taxpayers. We are forgetting 
in this debate that when we guarantee a loan, we are signing the 
taxpayers' names to a loan guarantee. In the real world if an 
individual or a business guarantees a loan, that is a very real 
liability to them, and we are not just talking about the Ex-Im Bank.
  The taxpayers of this country are now liable for about $1 trillion 
for student loans, trillions of dollars for mortgages and other loan 
guarantees and insurance.
  We cannot continue to pass these bills without realizing someday 
these bills are going to come due and the folks across the country are 
going to have to pay them.
  We were promised, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were making all 
these loans, that it was good for the taxpayer, that we were making 
money, we could not lose. But the taxpayers have lost billions of 
dollars. And now as we continue to guarantee loans around the world, 
some of the countries these loans are going to are on the watch list by 
Moody's and other ratings services because of the financial situation 
in Europe and all across the world, which is more and more strained. We 
cannot assume this money is coming back to the taxpayer.
  We probably heard already from some of the speakers that the Export-
Import

[[Page 6724]]

Bank was started many decades ago during Franklin Roosevelt's 
administration, and there was a limit on how much could be lent. It was 
$3.5 billion. But we know how government works and how government 
grows. The bill we are considering this week is not in the millions; it 
is in the billions; and it is not $3 billion or $4 billion, it is $140 
billion of loan guarantees to American companies that are selling 
overseas.
  Unfortunately, that does not help American companies that want to 
sell here in America, which means much of the domestic market for our 
products is financed at a higher rate. It is only the rest of the 
world. And we are the biggest consuming market in the world. This is 
not an idea we should continue in America. We are in a bidding war with 
China and Europe to see who can subsidize the most loans at a time when 
all of us are broke.
  We need to bring this to a close. Senator Toomey's amendment is a 
logical way to proceed. The World Trade Organization is set up to make 
sure there is a level playing field and that we are not subsidizing 
imports and exports. But this is a very real subsidy and a very real 
risk to the American people.
  Let's begin the process of taking away this excuse of why we need to 
subsidize them. The excuse is always: We have to do it because they are 
doing it. But as a world trading organization, we need to take down 
these subsidies and phase them out. We can do that and decrease the 
amount of money the American taxpayer is liable for. It is common 
sense. Hopefully, my colleagues will support it today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is voting on H.R. 
2072, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012. This bill 
will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which has been operating under 
temporary extensions. We are overdue to reauthorize and expand this 
important agency.
  The Export-Import Bank is an important tool U.S. companies can use to 
promote the export of American-made manufactured goods, particularly 
exports of small- and medium-sized manufacturers which make up the 
largest portion of the Export-Import Bank's transactions. The Export-
Import Bank provides financing to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods when 
private financing is not available. That financing allows U.S. 
businesses to sell more U.S. goods abroad, which means we create more 
jobs here at home. And the reality is that many of our trading partners 
that compete against us in the global marketplace use aggressive export 
financing to advantage their companies. We need to offer the same type 
of support to American manufacturers so that they can compete in 
overseas markets on a level playing field.
  Over the last 5 years the Export-Import Bank helped 148 Michigan 
companies export $2.7 billion worth of goods overseas, supporting and 
creating jobs in Michigan. Over 100 of these Michigan companies were 
small businesses selling a broad range of products manufactured in 
Michigan, including fabricated metal products, machinery, auto parts, 
chemicals, wood products, paper, and food. The three top export 
destinations for these Michigan exports were Mexico, Turkey, and 
Canada.
  The Export-Import Bank is self-financing and in fact contributes 
money to the U.S. Treasury every year. This is a win-win situation to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and increase its authorization level 
at no cost to the government so that we can export more American-made 
goods and create and support U.S. jobs here at home.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the 
next 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I have enjoyed listening to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle talk about Senator Toomey's amendment and all about 
subsidies. Well, it is hard to argue about subsidies when we are 
talking about the Ex-Im Bank generating $3.7 billion for U.S. taxpayers 
since 2005.
  So if this is a subsidy, we need a lot more of it because you are 
winning in producing jobs and you are actually producing money for the 
Treasury. This is a very important tool for us to win in a global 
economy. I think my colleague from South Carolina who spoke earlier 
said it best when he talked about the manufacturing jobs that are now 
in that State and what an important tool it is.
  I am not one of those who basically says: Oh, we should do it because 
other countries do it. I am saying, you should recognize that is going 
on, but that the United States needs to understand there is a global 
marketplace for its products. If you believe in U.S. manufacturers, as 
I do--and I have seen them in my State--they are winning the day in 
producing products and services that can beat the competition in 
international marketplaces. They can.
  I have seen grain silos, I have seen music stands, and, yes, I have 
seen airplanes. So the question is, are we going to let U.S. products 
that can beat the competition in an international marketplace lose 
because the purchaser of those products is looking for financing 
mechanisms that will help them secure financing and purchase of those 
products? That is the question.
  Does the United States want to do those kinds of activities? I say we 
should be even more aggressive. Why? Because the global development of 
many countries that are now buying U.S. products is going to continue 
to grow. In my State, in southwest Washington, in Vancouver, I saw the 
second largest grain elevator in the entire world--the second largest 
grain elevator. I said: Why do we have the second largest grain 
elevator in the entire world right here at the Port of Vancouver? They 
said to me: Because as the Asian middle class rises, they want to eat 
beef. And if they want to eat beef, they have to have grain.
  What is wrong with the United States selling grain to Asian markets 
because they want our product--or all these other products we have been 
talking about today? These are examples of products in the United 
States where we are actually building a product that many countries and 
many end customers want. We should celebrate that, and we should 
realize, as the growing middle class around the globe increases, there 
is even more opportunity for the United States to sell products and win 
the day in the marketplace. So I do not know what they are talking 
about when they say ``subsidies,'' because this has been good for the 
U.S. taxpayers, and it has been good for our economy.
  Specifically to the Toomey amendment, this amendment would require 
unnecessary conditions for helping the bank in the future. Basically, 
it would put a hold on the financing of the Export-Import Bank until we 
negotiated on an international basis to terminate this kind of 
financing.
  As I said, for many States, they have had great benefits. In 
Pennsylvania, they have had the economic benefit--this is in just 
2011--of $1.4 billion in exports and over 9,000 jobs. So here is 
something that has actually created jobs, created money for the U.S. 
economy--basically money back to U.S. taxpayers that we have used to 
help pay down the deficit. So how is it that is bad for us? In the 
meantime, that manufacturer in Pennsylvania is winning and getting his 
product out on an international basis and, hopefully, expanding his 
business to many different countries.
  We had numbers on some of the other examples of companies that have 
been helped in various States. These are products and services like 
many in my State. We have visited a grain silo producer in Spokane, WA, 
that is winning in selling its product. We visited a music stands 
company, Manhasset Music Stands. You would think somebody might be able 
to compete with them and beat them in the international marketplace, 
but, in fact, they are winning the day in the international 
marketplace, and the Export-Import Bank helps them in doing so.
  There are many examples of how this particular program is a win for 
taxpayers, is a win for manufacturers, and is a win for the U.S. 
economy. These amendments that are all trying to gut the Export-Import 
Bank would send

[[Page 6725]]

this back to the House, when we need to be sending it to the 
President's desk, giving certainty and predictability to our economy, 
giving certainty and predictability to a program that has existed for 
decades, for which often there has been a voice vote--instead of 
holding it up, actually making sure manufacturers have the opportunity 
and know where the financing is.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________