[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4677-S4695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

           BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see several other colleagues on the 
floor. I wish to speak for about 3 minutes on behalf of the nominee who 
was just confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         deGravelles Nomination

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is truly my distinct privilege to be 
able to speak on behalf of John Weadon deGravelles, a nominee for the 
Middle District Court in Louisiana. I am very gratified that my 
colleagues gave him a very strong vote of approval--a unanimous vote--
just a few minutes ago. President Obama nominated Mr. deGravelles 
earlier this year, and I am very pleased I was joined by Senator 
Vitter, my colleague from Louisiana, in recommending him for his 
confirmation today.
  He is affectionately known to his friends and family as Johnny. He 
has the support of a wide cross section of community leaders in 
Louisiana, and that support is based on an extraordinarily impressive 
scholarship he received to attend college at Louisiana State 
University, where he majored in sociology and received his juris 
doctorate from the law school. He excelled

[[Page S4678]]

academically and has practiced law now for decades but is still fondly 
remembered as an extraordinary student.
  After graduating from LSU, he served as a clerk at the firm Due & 
Dodson in Baton Rouge and would later become a partner in that firm. He 
is now practicing under his own name at deGravelles, Palmintier, 
Holthaus & Fruge.
  As a partner in his well-established firm in Baton Rouge, he has 
honed his skills as one of the region's most capable litigators in both 
Federal and State court.
  In addition to his work as a lawyer, respected by a broad cross 
section of leaders, he also taught for 20 years at both Tulane Law 
School and Louisiana State University. He is very popular, I 
understand, as a teacher. He is always open to students and his advice 
is sought after on a regular basis.
  He is a very active member of a variety of bar associations, 
including the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, 
and the Louisiana State Bar. He was admitted to practice, of course, in 
the U.S. District Courts for the Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts 
of Louisiana, the Southern District of Texas, the Fifth, Sixth, and 
Eleventh U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He 
has practiced for literally decades in front of the Federal bench.
  He has also been recognized for his outstanding leadership by very 
distinguished organizations, including the Louisiana Trial Bar, the 
Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association, and the Council for a Better 
Louisiana.
  He has written dozens and dozens of articles for legal publication. 
He is a sought-after speaker for seminars throughout the country.
  Our former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana--also the 
first woman chief justice--Kitty Kimball described Johnny as ``an 
exceptional lawyer who enjoys the respect of both bench and bar.''
  I think one of the most important aspects of his background is that 
after the devastating storms of Rita and Katrina in 2005, Mr. 
deGravelles was one of the real champions in helping to set up the 
Louisiana Association for Justice Hurricane Relief Committee which 
assisted many displaced attorneys who had no place to practice, clients 
who were distributed all over the country, and courthouses that were 
closed--to help the wheels of justice move forward during that very 
difficult time of upheaval and destruction.
  I have every confidence Mr. deGravelles will serve the people of the 
Middle District as a fair, wise, and very experienced lawyer who will 
serve as a judge.
  I am very proud that this body voted so overwhelmingly in favor of 
his confirmation today. I know his wife Jan is extremely proud of him, 
and he and Jan are proud of both children who followed in their 
father's footsteps. Kate and Neil are both practicing attorneys in 
Louisiana.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a 
piece of commonsense legislation the Senate is preparing to consider 
this week. The bill, which is called the Bring Jobs Home Act, sets out 
to do just what that name implies--bring good-paying jobs back to 
America.
  Our Tax Code has a fundamental flaw. Right now a U.S. company can 
decide to cut American jobs, move them overseas, and then claim those 
expenses as a tax deduction, thereby lowering the amount of taxes the 
company pays.
  If a company decides to move 75 good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs 
overseas, not only do we lose good American jobs, but taxpayers in 
Colorado and West Virginia and throughout the country are footing the 
bill for the cost of killing those jobs. American taxpayers literally 
get billed for the cost of shipping jobs overseas.
  I don't think it is right to reward companies for cutting American 
jobs, and I don't think it is right to ask taxpayers to subsidize the 
cost of moving those jobs overseas. That is why I am cosponsoring the 
Bring Jobs Home Act in an effort to provide better incentives for U.S. 
businesses to bring good-paying jobs back to our country and keep them 
here. Our country is at its best when we produce here in America.
  Simply put, the Bring Jobs Home Act is about looking out for the best 
interest of Coloradans and not the bottom lines of corporations that 
want to ship their jobs to places such as China and India.
  What is best about this legislation is that not only would it end 
taxpayer subsidies for outsourcing, it would take the money that is 
saved and invest it in America by offering a 20-percent tax credit for 
businesses that decide to bring jobs back to the United States.
  This legislation is one piece of a larger conversation Congress ought 
to have about what the Tax Code should look like in the 2lst century 
economy. What are the values it should reflect? What are the incentives 
it should provide? These are important questions we need to answer, and 
the Bring Jobs Home Act is an initial step to achieve fair and 
reasonable reform.
  I have been a long-time proponent of tax reform to streamline and 
simplify the Federal Tax Code because I am convinced--as I believe the 
Presiding Officer is--that the certainty and predictability it will 
create will lead to job growth in our country.
  Last week Colorado reported that its unemployment rate was 5.5 
percent, the lowest since 2008. But we can do more, and this bill is 
one of the best places to start.

  So let's join together and support this commonsense legislation so 
that we can reward companies that restore and create made-in-America 
jobs--jobs that shore up our economy and bolster our global 
competitiveness.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Senate Dysfunction

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the unique and 
essential role of the Senate in our constitutional system of 
government. In doing so, I am of course addressing the American people 
whom we all serve, but my message today is intended especially for my 
colleagues in this body.
  I had the honor of serving here for more than three decades with one 
of my closest and dearest friends, the late Ted Kennedy. Our friendship 
inevitably invited others to describe us as the Senate's odd couple 
given the vast differences in our backgrounds and our outlooks and 
because of the many fights we had on the floor as well as the many 
successes we had together. But my friendship with Teddy flourished, as 
did our legislative partnerships. Even with polar-opposite political 
philosophies, we were able to find significant areas of mutual 
agreement, and we both maintained a great affection for the Senate--an 
institution to which we had each devoted most of our adult lives.
  Toward the end of his life, as Teddy suffered through the terrible 
affliction that eventually took him from us, he watched his beloved 
Senate with growing concern. He observed a growing dysfunction 
beginning to overcome this body. He believed this institution, which he 
loved so dearly, was breaking down. The man rightly described as the 
liberal lion of the Senate concluded that this body was no longer 
working as it must.
  My friend Teddy was right, and the Senate has only gotten worse since 
he diagnosed its ills several years ago. The Senate is more 
dysfunctional today than at any other point during my nearly four 
decades as a Member of this body.
  I am not alone in this assessment. Former colleagues from both 
political parties--from Chris Dodd to Olympia Snowe--have spoken out 
with great passion about the breakdown of the Senate as an institution. 
It would be hard to find a current Member of this body who, in moments 
of honest reflection, did not feel as if the Senate is in many respects 
broken.
  Most importantly, the American public has lost faith in this body and 
largely views the Senate as an institution characterized by 
dysfunction. To say that today Congress is held in low esteem is an 
understatement. Our approval rating ranges from the teens to the single 
digits. One survey found that the public has a higher opinion of

[[Page S4679]]

brussel sprouts, root canals, and used car salesmen than of Congress. 
In many respects, this popular assessment is justified. Throughout my 
38 years of service in this body, I have never seen it this bad.
  For the sake of our country and the well-being of our fellow 
citizens, we must restore order and function to the Senate so we can 
fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and once again conduct the 
people's business.
  In reflecting on the past four decades in the Senate, I have come to 
realize that I possess an increasingly unique perspective. I have been 
in the majority for a total of 16 years and in the minority for a total 
of 22 years. I have served in this body with eight different majority 
leaders, four Republicans and four Democrats. By contrast, the majority 
of my colleagues--56, to be precise--have served in the Senate only 
during the tenure of the current majority leader. Nearly as many have 
served alongside only the current President. These numbers will 
increase in the coming months with the retirement of six of our senior 
colleagues and the potential electoral defeat of others.
  To my colleagues who as a matter of firsthand experience don't know 
anything different, let me say this: The Senate has not always been as 
dysfunctional as it is today. Quite the opposite. Until recently, this 
Chamber often lived up to its reputation as the world's greatest 
deliberative body. We regularly worked together in an orderly and 
constructive fashion to advance the common good, and we routinely 
defended our institutional prerogatives against executive encroachment. 
Unfortunately, none of that is true of the Senate today.
  I intend to speak in greater detail later this week about what I 
believe ails the Senate and how we can restore the health and dignity 
of this venerable institution. But to understand where we have come 
from and just how far we have strayed, we must begin at the beginning.
  Remarking on the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, 
James Madison wisely observed that in determining the form the Senate 
should take, it was necessary to consider the purposes it would serve. 
The Framers were clear about these objectives. The Senate was to serve 
as a necessary fence against what they described as the fickleness and 
passion that drives popular pressure for hasty and ill-considered 
lawmaking--what Edward Randolph called ``the turbulence and follies of 
democracy.'' In fulfilling this purpose, the Senate was to be a place 
of thoughtful deliberation, an assembly dedicated to careful scrutiny, 
and a body with great concern for the sovereign States and the 
individual liberties of all Americans. These were to be the purpose of 
the Senate. Its institutional design followed directly from these 
principles.
  The relatively small membership of the Senate would amplify the 
importance of each individual Senator as opposed to Chamber leaders or 
large voting blocs. Unlike in the House of Representatives, where 
robust participation by individual Members would be impossibly 
cumbersome, in this body each Senator could become intimately involved 
in all aspects of the Chamber's deliberation and debate. Longer terms 
would allow Senators to resist initially popular but ultimately unwise 
legislation and allow for vindication of this more measured approach 
prior to facing reelection. Staggered terms would create a continuing 
body that could temper unwieldy swings of public passion. Statewide 
constituencies would require appealing to a broader set of interests 
than more narrow and homogenous House districts.

  In addition, the Senate's authority to determine its own rules would 
allow the gradual development of traditions and precedents unique to 
this body and essential to its ends. Building upon the Constitution's 
defining institutional contours, these historic rules and traditions 
have shaped the Senate into a body that Gladstone called ``the most 
remarkable of all of the inventions of modern politics.''
  The Senate's most characteristic operating procedure became unanimous 
consent, which requires the agreement of not just a majority or even a 
supermajority but of all Senators.
  As Senate Parliamentarian emeritus Robert Dove testified before the 
Rules Committee in April of 2010, the two key features that have come 
to define to Senate through its history are ``the right of its members 
to unlimited debate and the right to offer amendments practically 
without limit.'' With these historic rules and defining modes of 
operation--unlimited debate and amendments--the Senate rightfully 
earned the title of the world's greatest deliberative body.
  In his 1897 farewell address, the first Adlai Stevenson, then Vice 
President, captured the essence of the Senate:

       In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint two 
     essentials of wise legislation and good government: the right 
     of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result from 
     hasty legislation; [but] rarely from the delay which follows 
     full discussion and deliberation.

  Stevenson went on to locate in the Senate's time-honored rules and 
traditions the very foundation of our Republic:

       The historic Senate--preserving the unrestricted right of 
     amendment and debate, maintaining intact the time-honored 
     parliamentary methods and amenities which unfailingly secure 
     action after deliberation--possesses in our scheme of 
     government a value which cannot be measured by words.

  In keeping with its institutional design and longstanding traditions 
throughout most of its history, the Senate has engaged in robust 
discussion and meaningful debate rather than being dominated by 
partisan grandstanding and cheap political theater; the Senate has 
sought to chart a path toward the common good rather than simply 
messaging to particular interests or serving narrow constituencies; the 
Senate has acted to cultivate common cause and has enabled constructive 
compromises and accommodations to advance national priorities even 
during times of great ideological division; and throughout the Senate's 
history, individual Members have worked to develop meaningful and 
enduring partnerships with colleagues on both sides of the aisle rather 
than marching lockstep with their respective parties and simply 
heightening the divisions in society.
  This institution has served the Nation well when adhering to its 
enduring principles and characteristic practices. Indeed, for most of 
the last four decades, as I have witnessed firsthand, the Senate's 
robust deliberation and open amendment process has facilitated and 
enabled some of the greatest legislative achievements of the modern 
era.
  One of the most historic of such debates in which I took part 
occurred in my fifth year as a Senator. President Reagan took office in 
1981 facing enormous challenges--stagflation, out-of-control spending, 
a crushing tax burden, and an underfunded military. His first 
legislative priority was to cut marginal tax rates, restrain Federal 
spending, and bolster our national defense. As part of the vanguard of 
the Reagan revolution in the Senate, I steadfastly supported these 
policies and campaigned tirelessly to enact these landmark reforms.
  In the Democrat-controlled House, the drama unfolded predictably 
between party leadership and various voting blocs, with conservative 
Democrats eventually joining Republicans to support what became the 
Gramm-Latta budget. But in the Republican-majority Senate, while debate 
was equally passionate, our deliberation was of a very different sort. 
We discussed many of the legislative provisions at length and voted on 
dozens of amendments from Senators of both parties covering a wide 
range of subjects. Many were tough votes on heart-wrenching issues--
from child nutrition to cost-of-living adjustments for seniors--but we 
took those tough votes and ultimately made the difficult choices 
necessary to usher in unprecedented economic growth.
  By allowing numerous votes on minority amendments, Democrats received 
the hearing they deserved on the issues about which they cared most, 
and having had the opportunity to fight for their causes, many of these 
Senators rightly felt they had done everything possible to improve the 
underlying bill. So when it came to final passage, the Senate's budget 
passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 88 to 10.
  Given the nature of the reforms, that margin was striking. It 
demonstrates that the opportunity for extended deliberation and an open 
amendment process tends to yield a final product that can win broad 
support by giving Members confidence that the ultimate

[[Page S4680]]

result represents the considered judgment of the whole Senate.
  From the perspective of committed conservatives such as President 
Reagan and myself, the final amended Senate bill was far from ideal. In 
the end, while we won support for the tax cuts that spurred growth and 
for the defense buildup that helped win the Cold War, we could not 
convince Congress to make meaningful cuts to Federal spending or even 
to restrain the growth of Federal spending. But to have opposed the 
final package because it wasn't perfect, because it only achieved some 
of our goals, would have been madness. Absent passage of the final 
bill's reforms, the central accomplishments of the Reagan years would 
never have come to fruition.
  In reflecting on how the Senate can and should work, let me also 
commend the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I am struck by the 
similarities between the 1996 election and the 2012 election when 
voters reelected a Democrat to the White House and a Republican 
majority to the House. Back then, both sides understood the voters' 
mandate to seek areas of agreement and develop consensus wherever 
possible--in short, to set aside partisanship and work together for the 
common good on the critical issues of the day.
  Republicans wanted significant tax cuts and spending controls that 
many Democrats opposed. Democrats--led by my friend Senator Kennedy--
had for years sought an expansion of health care to uninsured children 
who neither qualified for Medicaid nor had families who could afford 
health coverage. The debate that transpired over these measures seems 
almost foreign in today's Senate. Rather than being presented with a 
final bill as a fait accompli, we had a truly deliberative committee 
process, a meaningful floor debate, and the opportunity to vote on 
numerous amendments.
  Ted Kennedy and I used the opportunity of an open process to make a 
key step toward consensus. Teddy was wise enough to realize that I 
shared his desire to provide health care for uninsured kids who were in 
need, and I recognized that he was open to innovative means of 
delivering that care and did not insist on an inflexible, big 
government bureaucracy to control it. Together, we crafted an amendment 
that created the State Children's Health Insurance Program--fully paid 
for, with flexible means of delivery and true State authority over the 
program. SCHIP is not beloved by ideological purists, especially on the 
right. But I believe its approach is fully compatible with my 
conservative principles and a model for a basic, efficient social 
safety net run by the States.

  More importantly, our partnership on this issue demonstrates how the 
Senate ought to work. This Chamber provides a unique environment--its 
constructive character, its respect for individual Senators' 
participation in the legislative process, its forum for thoughtful 
deliberation, and its open amendment process. Without these, we could 
never have passed SCHIP and the larger 1997 budget--that was a budget 
compromise--of which it was a part.
  The same is true of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has 
since served to safeguard fundamental individual liberties, and the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which is arguably the 
most important law enforcement measure of the last half century, and so 
many other landmark accomplishments of the Senate during my time here.
  I am proud to have played a role in shaping each of these laws--as 
part of a constructive legislative process that was possible only as a 
direct result of the Senate's longstanding rules and traditions. 
Without this body's characteristic structure and mode of operation, 
which facilitates meaningful deliberation and ultimate cooperation 
between diverse viewpoints, such legislative achievements could never 
have occurred.
  Throughout its history, the Senate has advanced the common good--not 
simply through refining public opinion and translating it into well-
considered legislation but also because this body has defended its 
institutional prerogatives and essential role in our system of 
constitutional government.
  Senators of both political parties have often stood up to executive 
encroachment--not for partisan gain or political grandstanding but in 
defense of Congress as a coordinate and coequal branch of government 
with its own essential authorities and responsibilities.
  Implicit in the constitutional design of separating the Federal 
Government's powers is the idea that each branch would have the 
incentive and authority to resist encroachments from the other 
branches, ensuring that unfettered power is not concentrated in any one 
set of hands.
  The Founders recognized this as indispensable to preserving the 
individual liberty of all citizens. For as Madison counseled in 
Federalist 51: ``[T]he greatest security against a gradual 
concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in 
giving to those who administer each department the necessary 
constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of 
the others.''
  Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia embodied this institutional 
ideal as much as anyone with whom I have served. Although he helped 
lead this body for more than a half century and left us just 4 short 
years ago, I was surprised and dismayed to learn that a full third of 
current Members never served alongside him.
  Senator Byrd fiercely defended this body's prerogatives and 
independence against the encroachments of the executive branch. And he 
neither censored his criticisms nor weakened his defenses based on the 
President's political party. Even in his twilight years, when President 
Obama took office with extraordinarily high approval ratings, Senator 
Byrd was willing to hold the new President's feet to the fire to defend 
the Senate's right to give advice and consent to nominees.
  He publicly chastised the new White House for its excessive reliance 
on czars, observing that unconfirmed policy chieftains ``can threaten 
the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White 
House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that 
are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.''
  In addition to defending the Senate against executive encroachments, 
Senator Byrd was a stalwart defender of the Senate's most 
characteristic and historic features. He regularly spoke to newly 
elected Senators, admonishing each of us before we even took office to 
learn about the body to which we had been elected and in which we would 
serve. Senator Byrd was as good as anyone I have ever known at 
explaining the direct connection between the design of the Senate and 
the liberty that all Americans cherish.
  In November 1996, for example, when speaking to the incoming freshman 
Senators, he stressed the two most critical and distinguishing features 
of the Senate's operation. Like so many other students of the Senate, 
he steadfastly maintained that ``as long as the Senate retains the 
power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the 
people will remain secure.'' That was Robert C. Byrd, one of the 
leading Democrats of all time. Throughout his time in this body, 
Senator Byrd never abandoned this message. He stood up for the Senate's 
defining characteristics, no matter which party was in the majority and 
no matter who occupied the Oval Office. He even took on his own 
President from time to time.
  A few months before his death in 2010, he wrote to his colleagues 
identifying the right to amend and the right to debate as ``essential 
to the protection of the liberties of a free people.''
  We need a renewed dedication to the special role of the Senate and 
its institutional prerogatives that Senator Byrd exemplified so well. 
He was right to counsel incoming colleagues to ``study the Senate in 
its institutional context, because that is the best way to understand 
your personal role as a United States Senator . . . [Y]ou must find the 
time to reflect, to study, to read, and, especially, to understand the 
absolutely critically important institutional role of the Senate.''
  Many of my colleagues--even those with whom I rarely agree--have the 
potential to be great Senators and statesmen: worthy stewards of this 
institution, zealous guardians of its prerogatives, and true defenders 
of its role in our constitutional system of government.
  But, sadly, whether blinded by partisan loyalty to the President or 
too inexperienced to understand the Senate

[[Page S4681]]

from any other perspective than having a like-minded Senate majority 
and President, too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have allowed--even facilitated--the breakdown of the Senate's vital 
institutions and role.
  From our right to debate and amend through regular order, to our role 
giving advice and consent to the President's nominees, the Senate has 
emasculated itself. By doing so, we only abandon our responsibilities, 
discard our authorities, and lay ourselves prostrate before a 
politically destructive President.
  It is past time to restore the Senate's rightful place in our 
constitutional order. I urge my colleagues--both Democrats and 
Republicans--to join me, to stand and fight for the greatness of this 
body and start standing for the rights and the powers of the 
legislative branch. That is what we are here to do, in addition to 
enacting good laws. But you cannot enact really great laws without full 
and fair debate, without full and fair right to amendments. This is a 
great body, but it has gone downhill a long way over the last number of 
years. No President deserves total fealty by this body or by his or her 
party Members in this body.
  All I can say is, it is time for us to start acting like the Senate. 
It is time for us to have full and fair debate. It is time for us to 
have open amendments. And that goes for Democrats and Republicans.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about something 
that I think we should all be able to agree on; that is, every 
American--every American worker--deserves a fair shot to get ahead. One 
of the great things about our country is that has been a fundamental 
value or belief, and we need to make sure that value still holds in 
America right now: If you work hard, you have a chance to have your 
fair shot to get ahead.
  American workers are the best in the world. I can tell you that 
coming from Michigan, where we make things and grow things, and I am 
very proud of it. They can outcompete anyone and will win in a fair 
fight. Unfortunately, too often the fight is not fair today. We see a 
tax system that is really rigged against jobs in America too many 
times, and we need to fix that.
  Right now our Tax Code contains a shocking loophole that forces 
taxpayers to foot the bill when companies move jobs overseas. I think 
most Americans would say: What? Say that again. Companies are packing 
up and leaving the country, and the Tax Code is rewarding it and we are 
paying for it?
  Workers are forced to pay to ship their own jobs overseas to China or 
Mexico or other places around the world, and that is something that is 
very difficult to understand and believe.
  Not only do you get laid off, but then you turn around and through 
your taxes, through tax writeoffs, you are forced to pay for sending 
your own job overseas. Communities see a factory close, and through 
their taxes they end up paying for that empty factory in the community. 
Of course, we have seen way too many in Michigan. Our country sees 
that.
  This is outrageous. It is long past due to end. The good news is we 
have a chance to fix it tomorrow together on a bipartisan basis. I hope 
we will have 100 votes of people saying: We want to proceed to the 
Bring Jobs Home Act.
  I want to thank Senator Walsh from Montana for taking the lead. He 
has very specific stories to tell about what has happened in Montana. 
Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas is the same--very passionate about 
this. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join with them as we 
lead this effort to stand with American businesses that want to stay in 
America, and workers, families, and communities, and that we send a 
very strong message about what we think our Tax Code should incentivize 
by passing the Bring Jobs Home Act. We will have a chance to do that 
tomorrow.
  It is very simple. It closes an outrageous tax loophole that forces 
taxpayers to foot the bill for companies that move job overseas and 
replaces it with a tax cut that rewards companies for coming home. In 
the great State of Michigan we make things. We have always done that. 
It is part of our identity and our source of pride. It is the backbone 
of who we are. It is the backbone of the middle class, quite frankly. I 
do not think we would have a middle class unless we made things and 
grew things, which is what we do in Michigan. I know that is done in 
West Virginia and around the country. It is certainly what has created 
the middle class of this country.
  But here is what we have seen, because of a number of things. One of 
those is the Tax Code that does not make sense in terms of keeping jobs 
here. Between 2000 and 2009, in the last 10 years, 2.4 million jobs 
were shipped overseas. We have a lot of different ways we want to turn 
that around. In fact, it is being turned around for a number of reasons 
now. We are beginning to see them come back. But 2.4 million jobs 
shipped overseas.
  To add insult to injury, the American taxpayers were asked to foot 
the bill. That is just the bottom line. So what you see is people who 
have worked all of their lives for a paycheck get a pink slip instead. 
They played by the rules, but they were left on the sidelines. The 
company takes the jobs overseas and gets a tax break for shipping jobs 
overseas.
  When the Tax Code creates incentives to ship jobs overseas, it is a 
sign there is something seriously wrong. We have an opportunity to fix 
it. It starts tomorrow. Our Chair of the Finance Committee, Senator 
Wyden from Oregon, believes this as fiercely as I do, that we need to 
fix this. I am so proud to be a part of his committee. I know he is 
committed to making our system more competitive in a global economy. We 
need to do that. But right now we can close a tax loophole. We have to 
close a tax loophole so we can stop the flow of jobs going overseas. 
That is the least we can do. In fact, we should be adding to this first 
step by stop paying for the move.
  We ought to be closing the loophole that allows folks to act as 
though they are moving on paper, an inversion, when they do not 
actually move the plant. We ought to be focusing instead on how we are 
all in this ship together in America paying our fair share and moving 
the country forward, creating jobs, opportunity, strengthening the 
middle class.
  We still have more jobs leaving than coming back, but we do have a 
number of companies that are doing the right thing. We need to support 
them. The smart thing they are doing is bringing jobs back. They are 
bringing them back to Michigan and to States all across the country. We 
say welcome back and we say thank you. We should reward these 
companies. For those companies that are still on the fence about 
whether to bring jobs back to America, we should help them make up 
their minds by giving them new tax incentives.
  The Bring Jobs Home Act will not only end the practice of allowing 
companies to deduct the expenses of sending a job overseas, it will 
also allow companies coming back to deduct their expenses and give them 
an additional 20-percent tax credit for the cost of bringing jobs back.
  This is very simple. Stop the subsidy that is paying for shipping our 
jobs overseas. Allow the tax writeoff to bring jobs back. Add to it an 
additional tax cut of 20 percent in order to be able to support our 
companies that are doing the right thing.
  We have got a lot of examples of companies doing the right thing 
right now. For example, Whirlpool realized it needed to respond more 
quickly to customer requests in the United States and Canada, so they 
moved their washing machine manufacturing operations back from Mexico 
and Germany into Ohio.
  GE used to make its hybrid water heater in China. The company needed 
to trim international shipping costs and wanted more control of the 
product. They brought manufacturing of appliances back to the United 
States.
  But we are not just talking about manufacturing jobs, which of course

[[Page S4682]]

are so very important. Again, GE realized it needed the kind of IT 
engineering talent it could only find in Michigan. So work that was 
being done in India is now being done in Van Buren Township in 
Michigan, as they brought jobs home.
  We know that because of the explosion in natural gas and the current 
low prices, this is an incentive. I want to thank the Presiding Officer 
for his understanding of that and the importance of supporting American 
manufacturing, American businesses. We have a number of advantages 
right now to bring jobs home, to create jobs in America, including not 
only low energy costs but the finest workers in the world.
  We have creative minds with new ideas and hard work and innovation at 
university labs, and public research and public-private partnerships 
that are going on, forging technology, empowering world-class 
innovation. So there is a lot we can be proud of. Manufacturing is, in 
fact, coming back.
  I am proud that part of that is we stood with our American automobile 
industry at a time when they needed America to be with them and keep 
manufacturing jobs.
  More than 12 million Americans are working in manufacturing today. We 
created 7,000 new manufacturing jobs in Michigan last month alone. So 
we have the right policies. We can continue to keep that going. We are 
at such a tipping point. We are in a situation where we are saying: 
Okay, you can write off the move; hey, you do not even have to move; 
you can just change the paperwork, going through these changes of the 
inversion, and still get all of the benefits of America: the cleanest 
air and water, and our innovation, education, and roads, and all of the 
things that are great about America but you are allowed to just change 
the paperwork and avoid contributing as Americans, to strengthening and 
being a part of our country.
  We are at a tipping point. We have to make some changes that make it 
very clear whose side we are on. If we want everybody to have a fair 
shot, part of that is starting with a Tax Code that actually 
incentivizes a fair shot, not a system that is rigged against the 
people going to work every day, working hard, trying to get ahead, 
playing by the rules, all of that which we have grown up believing was 
the right thing to do in America. We have to make sure the Tax Code 
reflects the right values and the right policies.
  So we are at a point now where we need to put in place the Bring Jobs 
Home Act. That is going to nudge some of those companies. We need to 
make some other changes that are going to make it very clear that we 
want and are committed to jobs in America, manufacturing in America, IT 
innovation in America, all the other work we can do so well.
  You know, if we do not speed this up, at the current rate of jobs 
coming home, it is going to take us 100 years to bring back all of the 
jobs we have lost throughout this time. We can do better than that. We 
have to do better than that. The good news is, we have the power to 
speed up this process by putting in place the right policies, giving 
the companies that want to do the right thing the right incentives, the 
incentives to bring jobs home.
  It is time for our Tax Code to stop working against workers, 
families, communities, and the businesses that are in America, and 
start working for Americans, for the American middle class. It is smart 
tax policy we are talking about. I think it is plain old common sense. 
People in Michigan kind of look at this and go: Why are you even 
debating this? Why do you have to have a motion about proceeding to 
this bill? Why is that not something everyone agrees to on a voice 
vote? People cannot believe we are doing this in our Tax Code. So this 
is a very important step. We can do this on a bipartisan basis.
  I know we have colleagues who are concerned about what is happening 
on both sides of the aisle. Now is the time to show we can come 
together and make sure we have the jobs we want for our children and 
our grandchildren, the next generation. I hope we see an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote tomorrow.
  I cannot think of a single reason why anybody would be opposed to the 
Bring Jobs Home Act. Why would anyone be opposed to giving every 
American a fair shot, giving every worker a fair shot to a good job and 
the ability to care for their families and get ahead? A strong 
bipartisan vote would send a wonderful message that we can work 
together, that we get it, that this country will not succeed if it is 
just about a privileged few and everybody else losing ground, losing 
the grip to the middle class or having no chance to get into the middle 
class.
  This is an opportunity, with our vote tomorrow, to not only bring 
jobs home but support the American middle class.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             60th Anniversary of the Newport Jazz Festival

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the 60th 
anniversary of a Rhode Island institution, the Newport Jazz Festival. 
At this time, I wish to yield to my colleague Senator Whitehouse for 
his reflections on the Newport Jazz Festival. After he speaks, I will 
give my statement on this remarkable Rhode Island event. I yield now to 
my colleague.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am delighted that Senator Reed organized for the 
two of us to come down to the floor today.
  Newport, RI, is a venue for many wonderful and remarkable events, 
from the America's Cup of the old day, to the Volvo Around the World 
ocean races now, to the Newport Folk Festival, and, of course, what we 
are here to celebrate today is the Newport Jazz Festival, celebrating 
its 60th anniversary.
  Since 1954, this festival has provided generations of Rhode Islanders 
and visitors with the opportunity to experience some of the world's 
finest jazz music, and it has brought countless visitors to our Ocean 
State to witness these performances and enjoy our other great Rhode 
Island beaches and other amenities.
  The Newport Jazz Festival began as the brainchild of Elaine and Lewis 
Lorillard, who financed the first festival as a way to bring some 
outdoor excitement and activity to Newport in the summer. In what would 
become a historic partnership, they reached out to George Wein, a 
Boston jazz club owner, to help them organize the event. Their creation 
became one of the first dedicated jazz festivals in the United States 
and ultimately came to shape the genre in ways they never could have 
anticipated.
  The first festival was held on July 17 and 18, 1954, and included 
some of the finest performers ever to grace the stage, including Ella 
Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, and Dizzy Gillespie. Held at the Newport 
Casino in Newport's Bellevue Avenue Historic District, that first 
festival included outdoor performances that allowed attendees to sit on 
the lawn and enjoy a beautiful Rhode Island summer day while reveling 
in the music. The event garnered national media attention, and it drew 
over 13,000 people to Newport on its very first start.
  In the 60 years since that first festival, Newport has served as the 
backdrop for some of the most notable performances in the history of 
jazz. It was at the Newport Jazz Festival that Miles Davis first 
introduced the world to what would become known as hard bop jazz, 
mixing in sounds from the blues and gospel music. Duke Ellington's 
performance at the 1956 festival of ``Diminuendo and Crescendo in 
Blue'' is considered one of the greatest single performances in the 
history of jazz and revitalized Ellington's career. A number of 
performances at the festival have gone on to be released as independent 
albums, including acts from Ella Fitzgerald, Ray Charles, Nina Simone, 
and Miles Davis. The list of legendary performances goes on, with every 
year bringing a new crop of inventive jazz musicians to put their own 
mark on the festival's history and on their original art form.
  Since his original partnering with the Lorillards in 1953, George 
Wein has gone on to replicate his success in Newport throughout the 
country, while maintaining Rhode Island's event as

[[Page S4683]]

the flagship in the industry. He will do so again this year, still 
going strong as he closes in on his 89th birthday.
  Under his leadership, on Friday, August 1, Newport will welcome 
thousands of eager music lovers looking to hear the best performers in 
modern jazz. The ticket this year includes Wynton Marsalis, Trombone 
Shorty, David Sanborn, and many others.
  Additionally, in commemoration of this 60th anniversary, the festival 
will for the first time run for 3 full days, with shows lasting through 
the weekend.
  The festival no longer takes place at the Newport Casino, as it has 
outgrown that original home and it has expanded to three stages that 
are set up on Narragansett Bay at the historic Fort Adams State Park, 
looking out on the Newport Bridge and the East Passage, with the ships 
sailing by. However, the Newport Jazz Festival still provides guests 
with the same opportunity it did 60 years ago to come and enjoy the 
Rhode Island summer and hear up close some of the finest jazz in the 
world.
  I join my senior colleague Senator Reed in applauding the city of 
Newport for its outstanding commitment to the arts, and I thank so many 
dedicated individuals who have worked so hard over those 60 years to 
keep this wonderful tradition alive. I look forward to another 60 years 
of amazing jazz in Rhode Island. I once again thank my senior Senator 
for organizing us to be on the floor together for this recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank Senator Whitehouse for his eloquent remarks about 
the jazz festival, which is a great Rhode Island institution. Indeed, 
it is a great American invention.
  The Newport Jazz Festival owes its beginnings to the vision and 
financial backing of Elaine and Louis Lorillard, who in 1954 wanted to 
do something with jazz in their community in Newport. Through their 
collaboration with George Wein, a jazz pianist and club owner with a 
vision, the jazz festival was born. Today the festival has grown to be 
one of the largest and most well-known jazz festivals in the Nation--
indeed, I would say the world--attracting a whole new generation of 
artists and music fans. It also helped pave the way for the creation of 
the Newport Folk Festival--another pillar of the music festival 
community.
  George Wein, in producing the Newport Jazz Festival, did not set out 
to change the world; he set out to make great music. But, as history 
has shown, great music and great art can change the world. What George 
Wein did over many summers was produce something more than 
extraordinary festivals; he produced the soundtrack of freedom for a 
generation of Americans.
  Since its founding, the Newport Jazz Festival has seen an eclectic 
range of performers--emerging and established--many at the peak of 
their art--all embellishing their credentials through their 
performances. From Duke Ellington, to Frank Sinatra, to Led Zeppelin, 
the Newport Jazz Festival has seen them all. Its ongoing mission is to 
celebrate jazz music and to make the case for its relevance.
  The 60th anniversary festival stays true to its core mission. It will 
kick off on August 1, 2014, and is scheduled to feature a variety of 
talent over 3 days, including Wynton Marsalis playing with the Jazz at 
Lincoln Center Orchestra, Trombone Shorty, and Dr. John. It will also 
include one musician who played at the inaugural Newport Jazz Festival, 
Lee Konitz.
  Newport continues to attract top-notch performers and is still a 
must-see event for jazz and music aficionados alike.
  I would also like to recognize the impact the Newport Jazz Festival 
has had and continues to have in our great State of Rhode Island. Each 
year, the thousands who flock to Newport to witness the festival also 
have an opportunity to experience the treasure of a Rhode Island 
summer. In this way the Newport Jazz Festival has served as a major 
source of tourism--an important industry for our State--and should be 
viewed as a model for other communities to follow.
  I am proud to call the Newport Jazz Festival a home State event. On 
this milestone anniversary, I wish to congratulate my dear friend 
George Wein, the festival board, and all those who have worked and 
those who continue to work to put this outstanding event forward each 
year. Best wishes on a successful 60th anniversary festival and for 
continued success in the future.


                Congratulating the Newport Jazz Festival

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 510, submitted earlier today by 
Senator Whitehouse and me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 510) congratulating the Newport Jazz 
     Festival on its 60th anniversary.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 
the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 510) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record 
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REED. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Border Crisis

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a pressing 
issue--really, a crisis, and I don't use that word lightly--of some 
52,000 unaccompanied alien children streaming across our southern 
border with Mexico, coming into our country, and that number is 
continuing to grow. In fact, the Obama administration itself says that 
number could reach 90,000 or more by the end of the fiscal year on 
October 1--in just a few months.
  Again, this is a crisis on many levels. It is a border crises. It is 
a national security crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. It is a fiscal 
issue for our country. It is a very serious situation.
  I talked about it on the floor last week and laid out, broadly 
speaking, the policy response I think we need to have so this flow does 
not continue to grow. Today I come back to the floor, and I wish to 
speak about two things--specifics I have learned about how this crisis 
is specifically affecting Louisiana. I am really concerned about that. 
I am sure every Member here is concerned about the direct impact on 
their State.
  No. 2, there is legislation I have introduced to directly respond to 
this crisis. Again, it is a real crisis.
  In Louisiana, just in the last week or so, I have learned a number of 
specifics that are significant and continue to raise my concerns. I 
wrote the Secretary of Homeland Security asking a number of detailed 
questions some time ago, including about impacts on Louisiana. 
Unfortunately, I have heard nothing from the Department. I have 
received no response yet to that letter. I will follow up and get a 
response. In the meantime, these are specifics I am hearing from other 
reliable sources:
  First of all, the Hirsch Memorial Coliseum in Shreveport, LA, has 
been apparently contacted by the Department of Homeland Security about 
locating space for the housing of illegal minors--setting up a camp, a 
facility specifically for that. No Member of our delegation was 
contacted. I had asked specific questions about any activity impacting 
Louisiana. I wasn't told, but they were contacted directly.
  This isn't happening. It is impractical. It can't happen at the 
Hirsch Memorial Coliseum. They have many commitments and a lot of 
things they need to do there. So I don't think there is any chance of 
this sort of detention facility being set up there. But they were 
contacted.
  In addition, there are thousands of new ICE cases regarding 
unaccompanied alien children. First of all, before the current crisis 
began there was a backlog of these UAC cases being sent to Louisiana 
with family members or sponsors. So there is a backlog of about 2,000 
cases. Apparently, since

[[Page S4684]]

this crisis started developing in the last several months, we have 
1,259 new juvenile cases for Louisiana alone. That is a significant 
number for a State the size of Louisiana.
  We believe these are folks being sent through the Chicago detention 
facility to be united with family members or other sponsors in 
Louisiana. Again, this is exactly the sort of thing I had asked the 
Department of Homeland Security about. I haven't received any response 
to my letter. I haven't received any official formal response to my 
specific questions. We have had to learn this through other sources, 
talking to some ICE officials and others directly. This is really 
concerning. If this is going on in Louisiana, this is going on in every 
State of the country, and it underscores what a serious situation and 
in fact a crisis on many different levels this is.
  That is why last week I introduced legislation to try to address this 
very serious situation, this border crisis. I introduced S. 2632 to 
address specifically the UAC issue. I will outline broadly what it will 
do.
  Broadly speaking, it will make sure we detain these individuals, 
don't release them to relatives, family members, sponsors--don't 
release them out into society but detain them, and have a much quicker, 
more efficient process for deporting them and returning them to their 
home countries. Specifically, we would have mandatory detention of all 
unaccompanied alien children--UACs--upon apprehension.
  No. 2, we would amend TVPRA to bring parity between UACs from 
contiguous and noncontiguous countries. As most Senators know, we have 
a more streamlined, workable process for unaccompanied alien children 
from contiguous countries--namely, Mexico as well as Canada--but it is 
much more of an issue with Mexico. We would bring noncontiguous 
countries--Central and South American countries apart from Mexico--into 
the same category and treat those aliens the same way.
  Third, those UACs that do not voluntarily depart--which is part of 
the process dealing with Mexican UACs--will be immediately placed in a 
streamlined removal process and detained by the Department of Homeland 
Security. Currently, UACs are transferred to HHS and their Office of 
Refugee Resettlement, where they, quite frankly, disappear into the 
United States. They are reunited with parents or sponsors living in the 
United States, often illegally. What that means as a practical matter 
is they essentially disappear into our country.
  Fourth, anyone with gang affiliations, whether those affiliations are 
renounced or not, will be immediately placed in expedited removal 
proceedings under INA 235(b). Therefore, that would make them 
ineligible for asylum status.
  Fifth, we would raise the standard for asylum determinations, from a 
standard where it is now ``credible fear,'' which is extremely 
subjective and, quite frankly, a standard that is too easy for these 
folks to meet, simply by repeating the right magic words which they 
learn about as they come here. We would raise that standard from 
``credible fear'' to ``substantiated fear of persecution.''
  Sixth, within 72 hours of an initial screening, all UACs found not to 
have a claim for asylum will be given a final removal order and placed 
on the next available flight to their home country, subject to 
determinations of cost, feasibility, and any repatriation agreements 
with their home country.
  Seventh, a final order of removal is not subject to review and sets, 
as a minimum, a 10-year bar to reentry.
  Eighth, upon apprehension, biometric data--including, but not limited 
to, photographs and fingerprints--will be collected for future 
enforcement use.
  Ninth, and finally, the Department of Homeland Security will report 
annually to Congress on the number of apprehensions, the number of 
removals, the number of voluntary departures, et cetera. And 
specifically, in no event shall a voluntary departure be counted as a 
deportation.
  Now, what does all this mean? It is a very detailed bill. We put 
great time and effort into the specifics of the legislation. We need to 
get the specifics right. But what does it mean? It means we are 
stopping catch and release. It means we are stopping simply releasing 
these folks out into the country, to family members or to sponsors, 
where they are usually never heard from again. They don't show up for 
court dates and they don't respond to any enforcement actions. Catch 
and release is a complete failure because it essentially means being 
released in the country for an extended period of time, and it means we 
retain control and detention and then have a quick, efficient process 
for removing them from the country. That is the only way we will stem 
this increasing flow--still increasing. The number of unaccompanied 
alien children is still mounting and mounting and mounting.

  I called this a crisis at the beginning of my remarks, and it is. It 
is a crisis on many different levels. It is a border crisis, it is a 
law enforcement crisis, and it is a fiscal issue. As many folks have 
correctly said--particularly on the left--it is a humanitarian crisis.
  The biggest threat to these individuals in humanitarian terms is the 
fact that they are entrusted and put in the hands of outright criminal 
gangs, often drug lords and drug gangs, coyotes--folks who do not have 
their best interests in mind, and very often in that process they are 
abused in multiple ways. That is a humanitarian travesty and it is a 
humanitarian crisis.
  The problem is we have a policy right now that encourages that 
treatment and allows for those numbers to grow and not to be brought 
back down to zero. We need a different policy that discourages and 
stops that. Fundamentally, the way to do that is to apprehend these 
individuals, and instead of releasing them into the country--which 
means the illegal gang smuggling operation has been successful--quickly 
and efficiently deport them back to their home country. That is the 
only action which will reverse the message that has gone out far and 
wide in Central and South America, which is to send your minors because 
President Obama has an Executive order that says we won't prosecute 
them. That is the message that has been heard and the fundamental 
message we have to reverse, and you only reverse that message if you 
reverse the policy through specific actions such as what I have 
described.
  This is a graph which very clearly shows that deportations of this 
class of illegal aliens have plummeted under President Obama. President 
Obama often points to a change in the law in 2008 that was part of that 
equation. He complained about that for weeks and weeks when this crisis 
first hit the front page of the paper. The problem is when it comes to 
his proposal which was sent to Congress about how to deal with the 
crisis, he didn't ask to change the law. He didn't ask for any new 
authority to expedite the removal process. All he asked for was $3.9 
billion, largely for the housing and feeding of these aliens and not 
for expedited and effective removal. That is what we need to change. 
This trendline is what we need to change in order to address the 
problem and stop this mounting flow and crisis at our border.
  I hope we act in a responsible way by adopting this sort of policy 
and catch and release and detain these folks. Of course we need to 
treat them humanely and provide what we need to provide for them in the 
limited period of time we have them detained, but don't release them 
into the country with family members and often other illegals or 
sponsors. Detain them and deport them to their home countries. That is 
the only appropriate response which will stop this crisis from 
continuing to grow and stop the abuses and humanitarian crisis from 
continuing to grow.
  I encourage my colleagues to come around to this commonsense 
solution. The American people have already done that. Have a townhall 
meeting on this. I don't care what State you come from. Look at the 
polling on this issue. The American people have already reached this 
commonsense consensus. The question is, is Washington going to catch up 
and follow? Are we going to reach the same commonsense consensus and 
respond in a commonsense way that solves the problem rather than just 
growing it or throwing money at it?
  I encourage all of us from both sides of the aisle to come around to 
this sort of consensus approach. Of course I favor the specific 
legislation I have filed, S. 2632, but it doesn't have to be exactly 
that vehicle. It does have to be

[[Page S4685]]

that general approach in order to stop this mounting flood of illegals 
at our southern border and to deal with this crisis--including the 
humanitarian crisis--effectively rather than continuing to deal with it 
in a way where the numbers, the burden, the crisis, and the abuses 
continue to grow.
  In closing, I will say I am, again, very concerned, as I am sure 
every Member in this body is, about the specific impact to my State. I 
mentioned some of those impacts. I didn't get those details from the 
Department of Homeland Security even though I specifically asked for 
that from the Department. I have had no real cooperation or information 
from the Department. I had to search out that information from other 
reliable sources. I will continue to do that, and I will continue to 
get the word out to Louisianans because they deserve to know what our 
State and communities may be dealing with.
  In the meantime I hope the Department of Homeland Security will 
actually answer my letter, answer my questions, and give us the details 
directly so we all know exactly what we are dealing with as a country 
and in our individual States.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Supporting Disability Rights Milestones

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this is a very important week for 
Americans with disabilities. Just a few hours ago, at the White House, 
the President signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act which 
includes a reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act. This will ensure 
that young people with disabilities have the skills and experiences to 
enter into competitive integrated work settings and will be ready to be 
economically self-sufficient--one of the key goals of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act.
  This bill received extraordinary bipartisan support from an 
overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans. The final vote in 
the House was 415 to 6 and the final vote in the Senate was 95 to 3. 
This is a great testament to the bipartisan support in Congress for 
advancing the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities in 
the United States.
  Also this week, on Saturday, July 26, we will celebrate the 24th 
anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act by 
then-President George Herbert Walker Bush. As the chief Senate sponsor 
of that law in 1990, I worked closely with Senate and House colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to advance the bill. Again, we couldn't have 
succeeded without the strong and active support of a Republican 
President, George H.W. Bush, and key members of his cabinet.
  When we passed the ADA, as it is known, 24 years ago, the vote was 
overwhelmingly bipartisan. In the Senate, we passed it by a vote of 91 
to 6, and in the House it was 403 to 20. So not only were the votes 
bipartisan, the arduous work of crafting the ADA and getting it to that 
point was also bipartisan. I worked shoulder to shoulder with 
indispensable partners, including Boyden Gray, President Bush's White 
House Counsel; Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United 
States at that time; and here in the Senate Senator Bob Dole, who was 
so key in helping us to move this legislation forward at that time.
  Senator Dole was instrumental. In fact, I always remind my colleagues 
the first speech Senator Dole ever gave on the Senate floor when he was 
elected to the Senate--his maiden speech--was on that topic, the topic 
of people with disabilities and their rights and how there should be 
more opportunity for people with disabilities. It was a great speech.
  I think it is also known that today is Senator Dole's birthday. So I, 
and I am sure my colleagues will join with me, am wishing Senator Dole 
a very happy birthday today and asking to recommit ourselves, as he did 
at that time, to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure people with 
disabilities not only in this country but around the world have more 
opportunities to live a full and meaningful life. So happy birthday, 
Bob Dole. We worked together for a long time on these issues.
  Today is another interesting day. Today, the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, on a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6, passed out of the committee 
the United Nations treaty on disabilities, formally known as the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A major part of 
my remarks today is about the United Nations treaty, now known as the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities--or the shorthand 
version is CRPD as it is known here and globally.

  For most of our recent history, support for disability rights, as I 
have just mentioned, has been across the political spectrum. But now, 
as the full Senate looks ahead to the consideration of the Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we are beginning to see an 
unfortunate erosion of the bipartisan support for disability policy.
  Now, again, I wish to make clear that the Foreign Relations Committee 
reported the bill out this morning on a 12-to-6 vote. It was 
bipartisan. A couple things are in order: first, a recap of the 
history; and secondly, a very profound thank you to Senator Bob 
Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his 
tremendous leadership in crafting and getting this bill through this 
Congress in his committee. I have spoken with Senator Menendez many 
times about this issue. He has been dogged in his pursuit of getting a 
bill and getting it through the committee and to the Senate floor. And 
it hasn't been easy, quite frankly. Again, I will recap a little bit of 
that history for the benefit of my fellow Senators who may not follow 
this as closely as I follow it.
  Again, this convention came through the committee this morning. It is 
now awaiting a 24-hour layover before it can go on the executive 
calendar. As I said, there has been some erosion in the bipartisan 
support for disability policy, but it is limited because I think most 
Republicans and Democrats agree there is no objective reason for 
partisan discord when it comes to disability rights. Senator John 
McCain is a tremendous supporter of disability rights and was with us 
when we passed the ADA in 1990 and was, again, a strong supporter at 
that time. He has been a strong supporter of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act and other legislation dealing with 
disability rights, including disability rights amendments we passed in 
2008. So Senator McCain has long been a strong supporter of enhancing 
and improving the rights of people with disabilities to have a full and 
meaningful life--to be able to have the opportunity to go to school, to 
learn, be educated, and to have people work and to live independently.
  So here is what Senator McCain said this morning in support of this 
disability treaty. He said: ``Ratifying this treaty affirms our 
leadership on disability rights and shows the rest of the world our 
leadership commitment continues.''
  Senator Mark Kirk is not a member of the committee but he said this 
about the disability treaty:

       I want to say as a recently disabled American . . . how 
     important it is to adopt this Convention . . . Too often we 
     have a problem of thinking of our veterans as victims. They 
     are victors. . . . This convention allows people to become 
     victors instead of victims.

  And again, one of the true giants of the Senate, former Senator Bob 
Dole, who, as I mentioned, celebrates a birthday today--had this to say 
about this disability treaty:

       U.S. ratification of the CRPD will increase the ability of 
     the United States to improve physical, technological, and 
     communication access in other countries, thereby helping to 
     ensure that Americans--particularly, many thousands of 
     disabled American veterans--have equal opportunities to live, 
     work, and travel abroad.

  The fact is this treaty is supported by many respected, thoughtful, 
conservative Republican leaders. I can cite many more statements from 
colleagues and other Republicans. The simple truth is that Republican 
leaders who care deeply about our Nation's sovereignty are equally 
impassioned in their support of this disability treaty.

  So the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does not 
need to be and should not be a partisan issue, despite the misguided 
efforts of

[[Page S4686]]

some to make it so. It is deeply unfortunate that narrowly focused 
opposition from groups with special interests that are far afield of 
the bipartisan consensus in support of disability rights have tried to 
drag this treaty into partisan warfare. These groups have spread fear 
about some imaginary, hypothetical, unreal loss of U.S. sovereignty. 
They try to scare parents into thinking they are going to lose control 
of the education of their children or that they won't be able to home 
school their children or they have raised the issue of abortion, which 
has nothing whatsoever to do with this treaty. None of these things are 
relevant to or are embedded in the treaty.
  What we are seeing here is an action by some narrow special interest 
groups to advance their intentions by making utterly unfounded claims 
about the disability treaty.
  So, again, this is rhetoric we should not be listening to. We should 
listen to the voices of the better angels of our nature. This is an 
important convention, an important treaty.
  Even as recently as this morning I heard that in the Foreign 
Relations Committee someone raised the issue of sovereignty. Well, we 
passed a lot of treaties here in the past--lots of treaties over the 
lifetime of our Nation. Are we less sovereign today than we were 10 
years ago? Are we less sovereign than we were 30, 50, 100 years ago? I 
would have to have someone prove to me how we have lost our 
sovereignty. We haven't--not at all. And in every treaty that we have 
signed in the past, there is always a clause in the reservations, 
understandings, and declarations that attaches to the resolution we 
pass here on the treaty. There is always one clause that is attached 
and I will read it to my colleagues. It says:

       Supremacy of Constitution. Nothing in the Convention 
     requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the 
     United States of America that is prohibited by the 
     Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the 
     United States.

  That is it. That goes on every treaty we sign. It says, look, we are 
signing the treaty, but our Constitution is supreme.
  Continuing:

       Nothing in this treaty requires or authorizes any action by 
     the United States prohibited by the Constitution as 
     interpreted by the United States of America.

  Who interprets the Constitution? The Supreme Court. But then we can 
always pass amendments and change it--by the United States of America.
  So we have offered that this is the same language we ought to attach 
to this convention--the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities.
  Someone said: We don't know what the United Nations is going to do in 
the future. We don't know how they might want to change it.
  It makes no difference. It makes no difference what the U.N. does in 
the future. Our Constitution is still supreme, and this is the clause 
we put on there to say so. We do it on every treaty.
  We just passed a treaty here in 1999 that I was involved in--a treaty 
on the convention on the worst forms of child labor. It has that clause 
in it. We didn't give up any of our sovereignty by agreeing to that 
convention on child labor, and we won't give up any of our sovereignty 
here. So for anyone who is saying they are concerned about our 
sovereignty on this convention, we can put that clause in, as we have 
with every other treaty.
  There are some Senators here who were here when we passed that treaty 
in 1999, and they didn't say anything about sovereignty or that they 
were concerned about sovereignty. But now some are saying they are 
concerned about sovereignty when it deals with people with 
disabilities. Why? Why? Why?

  In 1999 we passed a convention dealing with the worst forms of child 
labor--a good treaty, by the way. No one here raised the issue of 
sovereignty. Today--what, 15 years later--we have a Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and a number of people say: Oh, 
no, we are worried about sovereignty.
  Someone please explain this to me. It is not about sovereignty. 
Anyone who is hiding behind that issue does not want to vote for this 
treaty for some other reason, but it cannot be the reason of 
sovereignty.
  Now, again, we have to look a little bit at the history of this 
treaty. The drafters of the convention modeled it after the Americans 
with Disabilities Act. In fact, if you read it, and you look at the 
ADA, we informed the United Nations--and I talked to people who have 
been involved in this in the U.N.--we, our laws, informed the U.N. as 
to what they ought to do in drafting this convention. Why shouldn't we 
then be a part of it, take the expertise we have and apply it globally?
  So it was drafted. It was sent out to the nations for their adoption. 
It was sent to our President. Under our system, the President sends 
this proposed treaty out to all of the Departments of the executive 
branch, including the Office of Management and Budget to see what 
budget impact it will have, and their charge is to see what laws do we 
have to change in order to comply with this treaty or what budget 
impact does it have.
  Well, it takes about a year to get this through all the Departments 
and agencies. But then, when it came back to the President, guess what: 
We do not have to change one law--not one--to conform to this treaty 
because the treaty is based on, basically, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. So we do not have to change any laws. And, secondly, 
there is no budget impact.
  So then the President sent it down to the Senate for ratification 
under our Constitution. Then Senator Kerry, who was the chair of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, had hearings. In fact, the two leadoff 
witnesses were Senator John McCain and me. Well, then there were other 
witnesses from the business community, from the disability community--
from all over.
  The treaty was reported out of the committee, I believe, in July of 
2012. We were not able to get it on the floor until December 2012. 
Thirty-eight Republican Senators had signed a letter saying we should 
not vote on a treaty--on a treaty--in a lameduck session. Then there 
were some other things that came up about home schooling and stuff like 
that.
  To make a long story short, when we brought it on the floor, and we 
thought we had the votes, we fell six votes short. We had 61 votes. We 
needed 67. We fell six votes short. A lot of Senators told me at that 
time we should not be voting on this in a lameduck session. In fact, if 
you check the Record, you will see remarks made by a lot of Members on 
the Republican side saying we should not vote on this in a lameduck 
session.
  Well, OK. That Congress dies. We now have a new Congress starting in 
2013. Then Chairman Kerry becomes Secretary of State and our new 
chairman is Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. So we started working 
to bring it back. Now again, it all has to come right back from the 
White House. It has to go back through the hurdles. It has to go back 
to the committee.
  I talked a couple times with the ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and he wanted to have some more hearings. So I 
talked to Senator Menendez about it. Senator Menendez agreed, and he 
held more hearings on it in this Congress--in this Congress--and a lot 
of voices were heard. A lot of people testified on it.
  Then it has to work its way through the committee. The committee has 
been very busy on a lot of things, but Senator Menendez never gave up, 
and so this morning, as I stated earlier, the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee reported out the treaty. I am so grateful to Senator Menendez 
for not giving up, for being dogged in providing that kind of 
leadership to get this treaty through. So now it is ready for us to 
bring up here.
  Well, guess what. We are not in a lameduck session, so that excuse 
has gone by the wayside. And we have answered, I believe, the questions 
on sovereignty and other issues. Now we have to look at who supports 
this.
  Well, I know some people were kind of nervous about the treaty and 
voting for it because they were concerned, quite frankly, for their 
political life. I guess some people in the tea party were making this 
sort of a litmus test, which I thought was kind of interesting. Why? 
Why this, of all things?
  So what we did was we wanted to see how broad the support was out 
there. 
It is immense. The support for this treaty cuts across all lines. The 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Tom Donohue--are strong supporters of it,

[[Page S4687]]

wrote a very strong letter and has been contacting Senators about the 
Chamber of Commerce's support for this treaty.
  I spoke a couple months ago with former Governor John Engler, who is 
now the head of the Business Roundtable, and informed him about it. He 
said they would look at it, they would consider it. He took it to his 
Business Roundtable about a little over a month ago, I believe, if I am 
not mistaken, and the Business Roundtable wrote a very strong letter of 
support.
  So two of the leading business groups in America are supporting this 
strongly. Every veterans group supports it. The American Legion, the 
VFW, the PVA--you name it--the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans all 
support this. Every major religious group supports it. All the 
disability groups support it.

  So what are we afraid of? Some people say, well, they are concerned 
about this sovereignty issue again. Are you telling me that former 
President George H.W. Bush is not concerned about our sovereignty? Are 
you telling me that former President George W. Bush is not concerned 
about our sovereignty? Are you trying to tell me that the Chamber of 
Commerce and the Business Roundtable are not concerned about our 
sovereignty or that Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania, the 
first Director of Homeland Security, who strongly supports this 
treaty--are you telling me he does not care about our sovereignty?
  Are there just a few people on this side of the aisle who know what 
sovereignty means? Of course not. Former President George H.W. Bush, 
former President George W. Bush, former Attorney General Dick 
Thornburgh, Boyden Gray, former counsel of the President--Steve 
Bartlett, former Congressman, a Republican from Dallas, a mayor of 
Dallas, came back and ran the Financial Services Roundtable, is a 
strong supporter--strong supporter--of this. Are you telling me Steve 
does not care about our sovereignty? I would like you to tell Steve 
that. He cares very much about our sovereignty. That is why it is a 
phony issue--a fraudulent phony issue.
  We have it within our power now to join the rest of the world. I 
think 
148 nations--148 countries--have now signed this.
  I was recently in China, and I was meeting with disability groups 
there. China signed the convention. I met with some disability groups 
that are not governmental, NGOs, which is interesting. This is now 
springing up in China.
  I also met with a person who is the head of the federation of 
disability groups in China. Madam Zhang, Haidi Zhang, is a very 
prominent woman in China, known all over the country because she is a 
famous author. She now heads this federation. They all told me they 
want the United States to be a part of this because it would strengthen 
them in working to change in their country, to make their country 
better and more supportive of disability rights.
  I questioned that because some people said to me here: Well, we do 
not need to join this treaty. We can work with countries one-on-one. 
You are going to work with 100 countries one-on-one? I do not think we 
have the personnel to do that.
  But here is what someone said to me who brought it home to me. They 
said: Look, if you come to our country and you want to discuss 
disability policy from the standpoint of your laws--the Americans with 
Disabilities Act--and we are a part of the CRPD, then we are talking 
two different languages. But if you are a part of the Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we speak the same language. Then 
we can start talking about how we work together to enhance the rights 
and opportunities of people with disabilities, not just in China but in 
Africa.
  Earlier this year, 21 countries met in Malawi on this issue. I was 
asked to come to speak. I could not because I was here in the Senate. 
They desperately want the Americans--us--to be a part of this, to lend 
our expertise, our leadership--not as a single country but with other 
countries--to, again, advance the cause of the rights of people with 
disabilities in accommodations, accessibility.
  This spring I was in Colombia--Cartagena--on a trip with other 
Senators, Congressmen, and I remember our colleague Senator Johnson 
from South Dakota and his wife were there. I remember Mrs. Johnson--
Barbara--saying: Boy, I can't wait to get back to the United States 
because it is hard for Tim using his wheelchair to get around anywhere.

  This is what I mean. We have to start working with these other 
countries to help them change their systems, their accessibility.
  I have talked to many veterans who would like to travel with their 
families or maybe even work overseas. They cannot do it. They are not 
accessible. I have talked to students who got a Fulbright scholarship 
or one of those things to go to another country, but since they were 
disabled, they could not take advantage of it because there were not 
accessible places for them to live or to get around.
  So if we are proud--and we should be--proud of the work we have done 
as a nation, bipartisanly--there has never been a partisan hint to 
anything we have ever done with disability policy in this country. So 
if we are proud of what we have done in this country to enhance the 
well-being of people with disabilities, to make sure they have a full 
and meaningful life, that they contribute to the best of their ability, 
to get them out of institutions, living in the community, working in 
jobs--not subminimum-wage, dead-end jobs, but I mean real jobs; and we 
have come a long way--so if we are proud of it, why shouldn't we be 
proud enough to join with the rest of the world in saying: Let's work 
together. Let's work together to provide in other countries that same 
kind of support and accessibility for people with disabilities?
  It is not going to happen overnight. I understand that. Sometimes 
these things take a long time. This weekend will be the 24th 
anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  As I travel around, one thing that always catches my eye--when I see 
new buildings, new housing, and stuff--is it accessible? I just saw 
some this weekend--new housing, multifamily housing--not accessible. 
Well, someone said to me: Well, you know, maybe people with 
disabilities can't live here, but there are plenty of other places. I 
said: Well, that is not the point. What if I want to live there and I 
want to invite my nephew who is a paraplegic to come visit me and have 
dinner? He can't even get in the door. Oh, well, that kind of puts a 
different color on it. I cannot even associate with people with 
disabilities because they cannot even come over to my house.
  So while we have come a long way, we have things we have to do. But 
we have to, again, be a part of this global effort to advance the cause 
of people with disabilities. Other countries are starting to catch on. 
They are starting to do things--some countries more than others. This 
treaty, and our joining it, means that we join with them in common 
effort--in common effort--to make sure people with disabilities are not 
shunted aside any longer.
  I think it is beneath us as Senators, beneath us as a nation, to 
somehow not accede to this treaty because of phony issues such as 
sovereignty.
  We can take care of that, as we have in other treaties. Or 
homeschooling or abortion. We can take care of that. We can say our 
laws are supreme. If someone says, ``Well, the U.N. might change it in 
the future,'' so what? It does not make any difference what they 
change. It does not affect our sovereignty whatsoever. So I think it is 
beneath us if we do not adopt this treaty, if we do not become a part 
of this global effort.
  Ronald Reagan referred to America as the ``shining city on a hill.'' 
Well, I think it is. Nowhere is America more of a shining city on a 
hill than in how we treat our citizens with disabilities. We have the 
gold standard. Now it is time to empower us to work throughout the 
world, to assist countries as they implement the treaty founded on the 
rights and principles embedded in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  It is time for us to reassert our global leadership in disability 
policy. So let's rise above partnership. Let's rise above some unknown 
fear that something might happen in the future. Let's rise above those 
narrow interests that say ``Well, we will lose our sovereignty'' or 
something like that or all of those other phony issues that are coming 
up because they want to undermine the treaty. We can rise above

[[Page S4688]]

that, just as we have done many times in the past, just as we did in 
1999 when we became a part of a convention on the worst forms of child 
labor. We put reservations and we put understandings and declarations 
in that convention, by the way. So we spelled out how we were adapting 
that to our own Nation. We can do the same with this one too.
  I have been told--I do not know if this is true--I have been told 
that some say: Well, it does not make any difference what we put in 
there; there are some people who will not vote for it, period.
  Well, are those the same people who would not vote for the Americans 
With Disabilities Act if we were to bring it to the floor today? Would 
they say: No, we should not change our policies that people with 
disabilities had to be institutionalized; that they do not deserve to 
work in the workplace; that they do not deserve the freedom to travel 
on buses that are accessible and trains that are accessible or subways 
that are accessible; that we do not need curb cuts and we do not need 
widened doors. No, we do not need to do any of that stuff.
  Would that be what they would say today if the Americans with 
Disabilities Act were on the floor? Any Senator who says: I like the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, and I think it has done a good thing 
for our country--anyone who says that ought to be voting for this 
treaty. That is what we intend. That is what we would do--reject that 
kind of fear and be a part of this global effort.
  Again, I commend Senator Menendez for his great leadership on this 
issue. I am hopeful that before we leave here next week, we might reach 
a time agreement with the other side to have a meaningful debate, have 
amendments. There is nothing wrong with having some amendments on this 
if people have amendments that are germane to the treaty. Let's debate 
those in a timely fashion and then have a vote on it. We need to do 
this. We need to do this to reassert America's leadership worldwide on 
disability policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before I speak on a different topic, let 
me acknowledge my colleague and friend from Iowa and thank him for a 
lifetime of service in the House of Representatives and the Senate. He 
has announced his retirement at the end of this year. That is a loss 
for our great institution and for our country.
  Tom Harkin, more than any other Senator today, as much as any other 
Senator, has been a clarion voice for the disabled across generations 
and across country borders for decades. He has changed America and he 
has changed the world. There are not many people who serve in this 
Chamber who can say that. But when he joined with Bob Dole, a 
Republican World War II disabled veteran from Kansas--when this 
Democratic Senator from Iowa, a Navy veteran himself, joined with Bob 
Dole and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, it held America to 
a higher standard. It guaranteed that our values we express so often 
would be values we live by.
  Now he is calling on us to join a family of nations that have admired 
our leadership in disability rights and wonder why we have not approved 
this basic treaty or convention on disabilities. I was honored today to 
vote for that in the Foreign Relations Committee again. We had 
bipartisan support. We are going to continue to strive for it.
  I thank the Senator for his unmatched contribution when it comes to 
speaking out for the disabled across America and around the world.


                              The Tax Code

  Dickens wrote ``A Tale of Two Cities.'' I come to the Senate floor 
this evening to tell a tale of two Illinois corporations. One of them 
is a corporation which I visited recently called Wheatland Tube in 
Chicago. It is a division of JMC Steel. It employs about 2,000 people 
nationwide, 600 in Chicago, which I represent. JMC Steel is a good 
company. It is more than good; it is a great company. The average 
starting wage at Wheatland is $15 an hour. The company offers generous 
health care benefits with low deductibles. It offers various retirement 
benefits. Newer employees get a 401(k) with a company match up to 6 
percent.
  I tell this story because I want to salute a company that takes its 
mission seriously and treats its employees fairly. I believe a company 
such as JMC Steel and Wheatland should be encouraged and rewarded when 
it comes to our Tax Code and our laws.
  We are hearing a lot from our Supreme Court across the street. They 
have come up with a new theory about businesses and corporations in 
America. Time and again they have told us that they now view 
corporations to be virtual flesh-and-blood citizens entitled to 
constitutional rights. They decided corporations have freedom of speech 
under the Bill of Rights and that corporations could spend unlimited 
amounts of money in an effort to elect or defeat candidates. They even 
went so far to say closely held corporations had religious freedoms 
that needed protection to the point where the owner of a closely held 
for-profit corporation could determine the contraception and birth 
control programs available to the employees of that company under their 
health insurance plans.
  So we are told over and over by this Supreme Court that we should 
view corporations in a human context. Well, I am going to stick with 
that chain of thought for a moment and talk about another company that 
is much different from Wheatland Tube, which I have just described. It 
is a company known as AbbVie. That is the new name; it used to be known 
as Abbott Labs. It is roughly the eighth largest pharmaceutical company 
in America. It is headquartered in Illinois, in the city of North 
Chicago. AbbVie recently made the news because its board of directors 
sat down and made a decision about the future of this company.
  First, let me tell you a little bit about AbbVie as a pharmaceutical 
company. AbbVie is a company which, like virtually every other 
pharmaceutical company, relies a great deal on our Federal Government. 
The National Institutes of Health--the leading biomedical research 
agency in the world--does basic research that our pharmaceutical 
companies use to develop new drugs and products. We pray that they 
will. When they find these drugs and products, pharmaceutical companies 
such as AbbVie go to the patent office run by our Federal Government to 
protect their property rights in their discoveries and their drugs. 
When they turn around to sell these drugs in America, after approval by 
a Federal agency, the Food and Drug Administration, they by and large 
sell them to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid--government-
supported insurance programs.

  The reason I tell this background is that AbbVie recently made a 
decision that they were going to renounce their American corporate 
citizenship and, in fact, at least on paper, move their corporate 
headquarters to an island off Ireland. Why would a great American 
corporation, the eighth largest pharmaceutical company, want to pick up 
and move to an island off Ireland? To avoid paying U.S. taxes. To avoid 
paying U.S. taxes, AbbVie is engaging in something known as inversion--
in other words, relocating their corporate headquarter offices and 
declaring themselves to no longer be an American corporation. Does it 
not strike you as strange that a company that makes billions of dollars 
in profit based on America and the strength of our own system of 
government now is deserting America?
  This inversion is not unique to AbbVie. We estimate that 50 or 60 
corporations are doing the same. I think it is time for us as Members 
of Congress to put an end to this. These companies that are deserting 
America and heading overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes have to be 
stopped.
  Allan Sloan, whom I have heard a lot on radio and other places, is a 
writer for Fortune magazine. On July 7 he published an article in 
Fortune magazine entitled ``Positively un-American tax dodges.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record 
after my remarks.
  Let me quote one paragraph from Allan Sloan about these ``Positively 
un-American tax dodges,'' such as the inversion planned by AbbVie of 
North Chicago. Here is what Sloan writes:

       Inverters don't hesitate to take advantage of the great 
     things that make America

[[Page S4689]]

     America: our deep financial markets, our democracy and rule 
     of law, our military might, our intellectual and physical 
     infrastructure, our national research programs, all the 
     terrific places our country offers for employees and their 
     families to live. But inverters do hesitate--totally--when 
     it's time to ante up their fair share of financial support 
     for our system.

  Exhibit A: AbbVie, a company that has been profitable and made 
billions of dollars in America, now wants to lessen its American tax 
bill by moving overseas--on paper.
  I think this has to come to an end. I think that when we sit down and 
make decisions about a tax code and tax policy, we need to be rewarding 
companies such as Wheatland Tube. Wheatland Tube, with 600 employees in 
Chicago, is an American corporation and proud of it. They are not 
planning on moving overseas. They are not trying to cut corners when it 
comes to their employees. They are treating them fairly. They are 
getting a good work product for it.
  What I propose is called a patriot employer's tax. If you have a 
corporation that is, in my view, patriotic, with its headquarters in 
America, that has not moved employees overseas, that pays its employees 
at least $15 an hour--why did I pick $15? Because at $15 an hour, most 
American workers would not qualify for government benefits.
  Perhaps the WIC program is one exception, but the only one I can 
think of. But these are employees who are paid enough in the workplace 
that they don't qualify for food stamps to supplement their income. So 
we chose $15 an hour. We said if the company goes on to provide good 
health insurance, a good retirement plan, where the employer 
contributes at least 5 percent of an employee's income toward 
retirement, and the company will give a preference to hiring veterans, 
I think that company is entitled to a patriot employer tax credit. 
Wheatland Tube isn't the only company in Illinois that would qualify 
nor the only company in this country.
  So should we be bending our Tax Code today so AbbVie and the other 
corporate deserters get a break by moving overseas or should we be 
changing our Tax Code to encourage good companies, such as Wheatland 
Tube, to stay in America, to pay a fair wage, to make a good product 
and make us proud. It seems a pretty simple choice as far as I am 
concerned. We are going to start debating that on the floor of the 
Senate this week--at least we are going to try.
  There is going to be a bill coming before us that has been offered by 
Senator John Walsh of Montana and Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan 
called the Bring Jobs Home Act. It is a variation on the theme that I 
just spoke of, but the bottom line is the same--to create Tax Code 
incentives for companies to bring jobs back into the United States. I 
can't think of a higher priority than to create and keep good-paying 
jobs in America.
  We are going to vote on moving forward on this bill, creating an 
incentive to bring jobs home.
  Here is what it will do. If a company moves a production line, trade 
or business outside of the United States back into the United States, 
it is eligible for a tax credit under the Walsh-Stabenow bill--a credit 
for the cost of moving the jobs back home.
  To pay for it, companies that ship jobs overseas--jobs going in the 
wrong direction--will no longer be allowed to deduct the costs 
associated with outsourcing U.S. jobs from their tax bill.
  Why would we want to incentivize a company to ship American jobs 
overseas? Why would we want to create a deduction to make it easier and 
cheaper to do that? It defies common sense.
  The Walsh-Stabenow bill reverses it and says we will no longer 
incentivize shipping jobs overseas; we are going to incentivize 
shipping jobs home from overseas. It is pretty simple.
  I would like to take that basic question to any town meeting in any 
town in my State and ask the folks sitting there whether they think 
that makes sense. I am very confident they will agree that it does. 
This is a commonsense approach to reward companies that are doing the 
right thing and eliminate tax breaks for companies that are doing the 
wrong thing.
  The patriot employer tax credit I hope I can offer as an amendment. I 
want to give a break to those companies that pay a good wage, keep the 
jobs in the United States, and don't ship their headquarters overseas. 
I think they deserve an incentive to stay.
  I guess I am old-fashioned, but a lot of Americans are old-fashioned 
the same way.
  I like walking into the store and seeing products that say ``Made in 
the U.S.A.'' Sure, I buy things made overseas. It is hard to avoid 
them. And I don't consciously avoid them. But given a choice, I would 
love to see the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label on these products so I 
have a choice to make this country stronger. That is what the Walsh-
Stabenow bill does. That is what the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act 
does. And that is what we need to do when it comes to these inversions.
  There was an article that was printed in Fortune magazine after Allan 
Sloan's article on July 15 the following week. It quoted a man whom I 
have come to know and once worked with in Chicago. His name is Jamie 
Dimon. Jamie Dimon is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase.
  It turns out JPMorgan Chase is the investment adviser to AbbVie, the 
company I mentioned earlier. They have been advising them about moving 
overseas to avoid tax liability.
  Mr. Dimon, in this Fortune magazine piece said: `` . . . it was 
inappropriate for anyone to moralize against deals in which U.S. 
companies seek lower tax rates through mergers.''
  And then he went on to say ``an inversion.'' He characterized moving 
your corporate headquarters overseas to avoid taxes as basically saying 
it is an acknowledgment how bad our Tax Code is today. It is a way of 
protesting what the Tax Code is doing to corporations.
  Our Tax Code today has resulted in the highest corporate profits in 
history. Our Tax Code today has resulted in paychecks for Mr. Dimon and 
other CEOs unparalleled in the history of the world. For Mr. Dimon and 
the corporate CEOs to argue about this unfair Tax Code as a reason or 
rationale for picking up and deserting America doesn't square with the 
reality of corporate compensation or corporate profits.
  Some people critical of what I have spoken to today will say: Well, 
now, don't go picking winners and losers in the Tax Code.
  I have news for you. The Tax Code is all about picking winners and 
losers. Sadly, the losers too many times are working families in this 
country and the winners are the people in higher-income categories and 
the largest corporations.
  Look at what the Tax Code incentivizes. It incentivizes drilling for 
oil, building wind turbines. It incentivizes holding stock for a longer 
period rather than a shorter period. It incentivizes saving for your 
retirement. It incentivizes buying health insurance. The Tax Code is 
full of incentives.
  So let's rewrite that Tax Code. Let's create an incentive to keep 
jobs in America. Let's create an incentive to make sure that companies 
which pay a fair wage and make sure their operations are good for 
working people get a tax break, and let's disincentivize the effort to 
move American jobs overseas and to move American corporate offices 
overseas.
  That to me is a Tax Code with the right incentives for building not 
only a strong American economy with good-paying jobs here at home but 
building our middle class and our working Americans into a strong 
entity, a strong force for progress and economic growth.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the articles I 
referred to earlier.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From @FortuneMagazine, July 7, 2014]

                   Positively un-American Tax Dodges

                            (By Allan Sloan)

       Bigtime companies are moving their ``headquarters'' 
     overseas to dodge billions in taxes . . . that means the rest 
     of us pay their share.
       Ah, July! What a great month for those of us who celebrate 
     American exceptionalism. There's the lead-up to the Fourth, 
     countrywide Independence Day celebrations including my town's 
     local Revolutionary War reenactment and fireworks, the 
     enjoyable days of high summer, and, for the fortunate, the 
     prospect of some time at the beach.
       Sorry, but this year, July isn't going to work for me. 
     That's because of a new kind of

[[Page S4690]]

     American corporate exceptionalism: companies that have 
     decided to desert our country to avoid paying taxes but 
     expect to keep receiving the full array of benefits that 
     being American confers, and that everyone else is paying for.
       Yes, leaving the country--a process that tax techies call 
     inversion--is perfectly legal. A company does this by 
     reincorporating in a place like Ireland, where the corporate 
     tax rate is 12.5%, compared with 35% in the U.S. Inversion 
     also makes it easier to divert what would normally be U.S. 
     earnings to foreign, lower-tax locales. But being legal isn't 
     the same as being right. If a few companies invert, it's 
     irritating but no big deal for our society. But mass 
     inversion is a whole other thing, and that's where we're 
     heading.
       We've also got a second, related problem, which I call the 
     ``never-heres.'' They include formerly private companies like 
     Accenture, a consulting firm that was spun off from Arthur 
     Andersen, and disc-drive maker Seagate, which began as a U.S. 
     company, went private in a 2000 buyout and was moved to the 
     Cayman Islands, went public in 2002, then moved to Ireland 
     from the Caymans in 2010. Firms like these can duck lots of 
     U.S. taxes without being accused of having deserted our 
     country because technically they were never here. So far, by 
     Fortune's count, some 60 U.S. companies have chosen the 
     never-here or the inversion route, and others are lining up 
     to leave.
       All of this threatens to undermine our tax base, with 
     projected losses in the billions. It also threatens to 
     undermine the American public's already shrinking respect for 
     big corporations.
       Inverters, of course, have a different view of things. It 
     goes something like this: The U.S. tax rate is too high, and 
     uncompetitive. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. taxes 
     all profits worldwide, not just those earned here. A domicile 
     abroad can offer a more competitive corporate tax rate. 
     Fiduciary duty to shareholders requires that companies 
     maximize returns.
       My answer: Fight to fix the tax code, but don't desert the 
     country. And I define ``fiduciary duty'' as the obligation to 
     produce the best long-term results for shareholders, not 
     ``get the stock price up today.'' Undermining the finances of 
     the federal government by inverting helps undermine our 
     economy. And that's a bad thing, in the long run, for 
     companies that do business in America.
       Finally, there's reputational risk. I wouldn't be surprised 
     to see someone in Washington call public hearings and ask 
     CEOs of inverters and would-be inverters why they think it's 
     okay for them to remain U.S. citizens while their companies 
     renounce citizenship. Imagine the reaction! And the punitive 
     legislation it could spark.


   WATCH: Inversion: How some major U.S. companies are dodging taxes

       Fortune contacted every company on our list of tax avoiders 
     and asked why they incorporated overseas. Four of them--
     Carnival, Garmin, Invesco, and XL--said they were never U.S. 
     companies. In other words, they are never-heres. Five more--
     Actavis, Allegion, Eaton, Ingersoll Rand, and Perrigo--said 
     they inverted mainly for strategic purposes. The tenth, 
     Nabors, refused to respond to our multiple requests.
       Companies that have gone the inversion or never-here route 
     but that act American include household names like Garmin, 
     Michael Kors, Carnival, and Nielsen. Pfizer the giant 
     pharmaceutical company, tried to invert this spring, but the 
     deal fell through. Medtronic, the big medical-device company, 
     is trying to invert, of which more later. Walgreen is talking 
     about inverting too--it's easier to boost earnings by playing 
     tax games than by fixing the way you run your stores.
       Then there's the ``Can you believe this?'' factor. 
     Carnival, a Panama-based company with headquarters in Miami, 
     was happy to have the U.S. Coast Guard, for which it doesn't 
     pay its fair share, help rescue its burning Carnival Triumph. 
     (It later reimbursed Uncle Sam.) Alexander Cutler, chief 
     executive of Eaton, a Cleveland company that he inverted to 
     Ireland, told the City Club of Cleveland, without a trace of 
     irony, that to fix our nation's budget problems, we need to 
     close ``those loopholes in the tax system.'' Inversions, I 
     guess, aren't loopholes.
       Before we proceed, a brief confessional rant: The spectacle 
     of American corporations deserting our country to dodge taxes 
     while expecting to get the same benefits that good corporate 
     citizens get makes me deeply angry. It's the same way that I 
     felt when idiots and incompetents in Washington brought us to 
     the brink of defaulting on our national debt in the summer of 
     2011, the last time that I wrote anything angry at remotely 
     this length. (See ``American Idiots.'') Except that this is 
     worse.
       Inverters don't hesitate to take advantage of the great 
     things that make America America: our deep financial markets, 
     our democracy and rule of law, our military might, our 
     intellectual and physical infrastructure, our national 
     research programs, all the terrific places our country offers 
     for employees and their families to live. But inverters do 
     hesitate--totally--when it's time to ante up their fair share 
     of financial support of our system.
       Inverting a company, which is done in the name of 
     ``shareholder value''--a euphemism for a higher stock price--
     is way more offensive to me than even the most disgusting 
     (albeit not illegal) tax games that companies like Apple and 
     GE play to siphon earnings out of the U.S. At least those 
     companies remain American. It may be for technical reasons 
     that I won't bore you with--but I don't care. What matters is 
     the result. Apple and GE remain American. Inverters are 
     deserters.
       Even though I understand inversion intellectually, I have 
     trouble dealing with it emotionally. Maybe it's because of my 
     background: I'm the grandson of immigrants, and I'm 
     profoundly grateful that this country took my family in. 
     Watching companies walk out just to cut their taxes turns my 
     stomach.
       Okay, rant over.
       The current poster child for inversion outrage is Medtronic 
     Inc., the multinational Minnesota medical-device company that 
     once exuded a cleaner-than-clean image but now proposes to 
     move its nominal headquarters to Ireland by paying a fat 
     premium price to purchase Covidien, itself a faux-Irish firm 
     that is run from Massachusetts except for income-taxpaying 
     purposes. For that, it's based in Dublin. That's where the 
     new Medtronic PLC would be based, while its real headquarters 
     would remain on Medtronic Parkway in Minneapolis. Of course, 
     the company is unlikely to return any of the $484 million 
     worth of contracts the federal government says it has awarded 
     Medtronic over the past five years.
       If the Medtronic deal goes through, which seems likely, it 
     will open the floodgates. Congress could close them, as we'll 
     see--but that would require our representatives and senators 
     to get their act together. Good luck with that.
       Now let's have a look at some of the more interesting 
     aspects of the proposed Medtronic-Covidien marriage. I'm not 
     trying to pick on Medtronic--but its decision to become the 
     biggest company to invert makes it fair journalistic game.
       Medtronic is one of those U.S. companies with a ton of cash 
     offshore: something like $14 billion. That's money on which 
     U.S. income tax hasn't been paid. Medtronic told me it would 
     have to pay $3.5 billion to $4.2 billion to the IRS if it 
     brought that money into the U.S.: That's the difference 
     between the 35% U.S. tax rate and the 5% to 10% it has paid 
     to other countries. Among other things, inverting would let 
     Medtronic PLC use offshore cash to pay dividends without 
     subjecting the money to U.S. corporate tax.
       I especially love a little-noticed multimillion-dollar 
     goody that Medtronic is giving its board members and top 
     executives. Years ago, in order to discourage inversions, 
     Congress imposed a 15% excise tax on the value of options and 
     restricted stock owned by top officers and board members of 
     inverting companies. Guess what? Medtronic says it's going to 
     give the affected people enough money to pay the tax.
       We're talking major money--major money that I'm glad to say 
     isn't tax-deductible to Medtronic. The company wouldn't tell 
     me how much this would cost its stockholders. So I did my own 
     back-of-the-envelope math, starting with chief executive Omar 
     Ishrak. Using numbers from Medtronic's 2014 proxy statement 
     and adjusting for its stock price when I was writing this, I 
     figure that his options and restricted shares are worth at 
     least $40 million, and the ``equity incentive plan awards'' 
     that he might get are worth another $23 million. Allow for 
     the fact that Medtronic will ``gross up'' Ishrak et al. by 
     giving them enough money to cover both the excise tax and the 
     tax due on their excise tax subsidy, and you end up with $7.1 
     million to $11.2 million just for Ishrak. And something more 
     than $60 million for Medtronic as a whole.
       Why does Medtronic feel the need to shell out this money? 
     The company's answer: ``Medtronic has agreed to indemnify 
     directors and executive officers for such excise tax because 
     they should not be discouraged from taking actions that they 
     believe are in the best interests of Medtronic and its 
     shareholders.''
       But you know what, folks? These people are fiduciaries, who 
     are legally required to put shareholders' interests ahead of 
     their own. If they believe that inverting is the right thing 
     to do (which, it should be obvious by now, I don't) they 
     ought to pay any expenses they incur out of their own 
     pockets, not the shareholders'. It's not as if these people 
     lack the means to pay--the directors get $220,000 a year (and 
     up) in cash and stock for a part-time job, and Ishrak gets a 
     typical hefty CEO package.
       One more thing: Normally, a company's shareholders don't 
     have to pay capital gains tax if their firm makes an 
     acquisition. But because this is an inversion, Medtronic 
     shareholders will be treated as if they've sold their shares 
     and will owe taxes on their gains. However, the deal won't 
     give them any cash with which to pay the tab.
       The company asked me to mention that its executives and 
     directors, like other holders, will be subject to gains tax 
     on shares that they own outright, and Medtronic won't 
     compensate them for it. Okay. Consider it mentioned.
       Second, the company contends that this deal will be so good 
     for shareholders that it will more than offset their tax cost 
     triggered by the board's decision to invert. Well, we'll see.
       A major barrier to inversion used to be that companies 
     moving offshore were kicked out of the Standard & Poor's 500 
     index. Given that more than 10% (by my estimate) of the S&P 
     500 stocks are owned by indexers, getting tossed out of the 
     index--or being added to it--makes a big, short-term 
     difference in share price. In 2008 and 2009, S&P, which has a 
     few never-heres, tossed nine companies off

[[Page S4691]]

     the 500 for inverting. But four years ago, S&P changed 
     course, for business reasons. Companies were angry at being 
     excluded, and index investors wanted to own some of the 
     excluded companies. Moreover, S&P feared that a competitor 
     would set up a more inclusive, rival index.
       So in June 2010, S&P changed its definition of American. 
     Now all it takes to be in the S&P 500 is to trade on a U.S. 
     market, be considered a U.S. filer by the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission, and have a plurality of business and/or 
     assets in the U.S.
       The result: S&P now has 28 non-American companies in the 
     500.
       How much money are we talking about inverters sucking out 
     of the U.S. Treasury? There's no number available for the tax 
     revenue losses caused by inverters and never-heres so far. 
     But it's clearly in the billions. Congress's Joint Committee 
     on Taxation projects that failing to limit inversions will 
     cost the Treasury an additional $19.5 billion over 10 years--
     a number that seems way low, given the looming stampede. But 
     even $19.5 billion--$2 billion a year--is a lot, if you look 
     at it the right way. It's enough to cover what Uncle Sam 
     spends on programs to help homeless veterans and to conduct 
     research to create better prosthetic arms and legs for our 
     wounded warriors.
       Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) and his brother, Sen. Carl Levin 
     (D-Mich.), have introduced legislation that would stop 
     Medtronic in its tracks by making inversions harder. Under 
     current law, adopted in 2004 as an inversion stopper, a U.S. 
     company can invert only if it is doing significant business 
     in its new domicile and shareholders of the foreign company 
     it buys to do the inversion own at least 20% of the combined 
     firm.
       The Levins propose to require that foreign-firm 
     shareholders own at least 50% of the combined company for it 
     to be able to invert and also that the company's management 
     change. This would really slow down inversions--but the 
     chances of Congress passing the Levin legislation are 
     somewhere between slim and none.
       Conventional wisdom holds that companies are inverting now 
     because they've despaired of getting clean-cut reform that 
     would widen the tax base and lower rates. But John Buckley, 
     former chief Democratic tax counsel for the House Ways and 
     Means Committee, has a different view. Buckley thinks that 
     we're seeing an inversion wave not because there's no 
     prospect of tax reform but because there is a prospect of 
     reform. If reform comes, he says, there will be winners and 
     losers--and it's the likely losers-to-be that are inverting. 
     ``Even minimal tax reform would hurt a lot of these companies 
     badly,'' he says.
       For example, Buckley says, a company that inverts before 
     reform takes effect will be able to suck income out of the 
     U.S. to lower-tax locales much more easily than if it were 
     still a U.S. company. ``A revenue-neutral tax reform requires 
     there to be winners and losers,'' Buckley says. ``But by 
     inverting, the companies that would be losers are taking 
     themselves out of the equation . . . They're taking advantage 
     of both U.S. individual taxpayers and other corporations.''
       If you're a typical CEO who has read this far, about now 
     you're shaking your head and thinking, ``What a jerk! Just 
     cut my tax rate and I'll stay.'' To which I say, ``I wouldn't 
     bet on it.'' In the widely hailed 1986 tax reform act, 
     Congress cut the corporate rate to 34% (now 35%) from 46%, 
     and closed some loopholes. Corporate America was happy--for 
     awhile. Now, with Ireland at 12.5% and Britain at 20% (or 
     less, if you make a deal), 35% is intolerable. Let's say we 
     cut the rate to 25%, the wished-for number I hear bandied 
     about. Other countries are lower, and could go lower still in 
     order to lure our companies. Is Corporate America willing to 
     pay any corporate rate above zero? I wonder.
       So what do we need? I'll offer you a bipartisan solution--
     no, I'm not kidding. For starters, we need to tighten 
     inversion rules as proposed by Sandy and Carl Levin, who are 
     both bigtime Democrats. That would buy time to erect a more 
     rational corporate tax structure than we have now--bolstered, 
     I hope, by input from tough-minded tax techies.
       We also need loophole tighteners along the lines of 
     proposals in the Republican-sponsored, dead-on-arrival Tax 
     Reform Act of 2014. One part would have imposed a tax of 
     8.75% a year on cash and cash equivalents held offshore, and 
     3.5% a year on other retained offshore earnings.
       Another thing we need to do--which the SEC or the Financial 
     Accounting Standards Board could do in a heartbeat, but 
     won't--is require publicly traded U.S. companies and U.S. 
     subsidiaries of publicly traded foreign companies to disclose 
     two numbers from the tax returns they file with the IRS: 
     their U.S. taxable income for a given year, and how much 
     income tax they owed. This would take perhaps one person-hour 
     a year per company.
       That way we would know what firms actually pay instead of 
     having to guess at it. Then we could compare and contrast 
     companies' income tax payments.
       What we don't need is another one-time ``tax holiday,'' 
     like the one being proposed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), to 
     let companies pay 9.5% rather than 35% to bring earnings held 
     offshore into the U.S. It would be the second time in a 
     decade we've done that, and would signal tax avoiders that 
     they should keep sending tons of money offshore, then wait 
     for a tax holiday--presumably not on the Fourth of July--to 
     bring it back.
       Until--and unless--we somehow get our act together on 
     corporate tax reform, companies will keep leaving our 
     country. Those that try to do the right thing and act like 
     good American corporate citizens will come under increasing 
     pressure to invert, if only to fend off possible attacks by 
     corporate pirates--I'm sorry, ``activist investors''--who see 
     inversion as a way to get a quick uptick in their targets' 
     stock price.
       Now, two brief rays of sunshine: one in England, one here.
       Starbucks, embarrassed by a 2012 Reuters expose showing 
     that it paid little or no taxes in England despite telling 
     shareholders it made big profits there, has recently 
     apologized and now makes substantial British tax payments. 
     And eBay, God bless it, decided to bring $9 billion of 
     offshore cash into the U.S. and pay taxes on it.
       So I'm feeling a bit better about July than when I started 
     writing this. In any event, a happy summer to you and yours.
                                  ____


      Jamie Dimon: Companies Should Feel Free To Bail on the U.S.

                          (By Stephen Gandel)

       The JPMorgan CEO gave a thumbs up to inversions, the 
     growing practice where American companies buy smaller foreign 
     companies to relocate overseas and avoid paying U.S. taxes.
       JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says he's okay with 
     companies using a hot tax dodge that could cost the U.S. tens 
     of billions of dollars over the decade.
       Dimon's public thumbs up for inversions--the growing 
     practice where American companies buy smaller foreign 
     companies to relocate overseas and avoid paying U.S. taxes--
     came in response to a question from Fortune on a media 
     conference call after JPMorgan JPM 0.74% released its second 
     quarter results. He said the real problem was the tax code, 
     not CEOs trying to shirk their responsibilities.
       ``You want the choice to be able to go to Wal-Mart to get 
     the lowest prices,'' Dimon said on a conference call with 
     reporters on Tuesday morning. ``Companies should be able to 
     make that choice as well.''
       Dimon did not elaborate on the difference between choosing 
     where to buy your underwear and where a corporation calls 
     home. In a recent cover story for Fortune, Allan Sloan argued 
     that U.S. companies are ``positively unpatriotic'' when they 
     move their corporate headquarters overseas to pay lower taxes 
     because of the benefits they receive by being (except for tax 
     purposes) American companies. What's more, Sloan argued 
     undermining the U.S. tax base will be bad for all 
     shareholders in the long run.
       Dimon seemed to brush aside those concerns. He said it was 
     inappropriate for anyone to moralize against deals in which 
     U.S. companies seek lower tax rates through mergers. No large 
     U.S. bank has proposed an inversion deal. Since the financial 
     crisis, there has been a debate about the size of the 
     subsidizes that large banks like JPMorgan receive from U.S. 
     taxpayers.
       At least for now, inversions are good for Dimon and his 
     shareholders. The firm has been an advisor on 19 inversion 
     deals that have been announced since last year. The bank is 
     advising drug maker AbbVie on its $53 billion bid for Dublin-
     based Shire, which was announced on Monday.
       ``I love America. I'm just as patriotic as anyone,'' said 
     Dimon. ``But we have a flawed corporate tax code that is 
     driving U.S. companies overseas.''

  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I was listening to my colleague from 
Illinois talking about the need for us to have economic patriotism and 
to keep people from moving jobs offshore.
  I couldn't agree more, but the way to do it is to fix a broken Tax 
Code. It is frustrating to me that we have the President of the United 
States, we have Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have 
talked and talked and talked about the fact that we need to lower our 
tax rate and come up with a more competitive international tax system, 
and yet we do nothing about it. Instead, we are for these one-off 
political debates that we are going to have on the floor this week, 
apparently, that unfortunately aren't going to make any difference to 
the workers in America who are seeing this erosion of their wages, of 
their benefits, and often of their jobs because Washington is 
abdicating its responsibility. Washington is not doing what it has to 
do in order to meet its fiduciary responsibilities.
  There is a lot of talk about that with these corporations. Our 
responsibility is to the people--to have the right tax system in place 
so that people can succeed so that if they work hard and play by the 
rules, the Tax Code is actually going to reward them and American 
companies can be competitive. That is simply not what is happening now. 
We need to do a lot of things too, such as to be sure we have a 
regulatory system that works, to have an international trading system 
that works for the workers of America, and to be sure we deal with our 
debt, deficit, and other issues.

[[Page S4692]]

  But because the discussion of taxes is on the floor this week, I 
thought it would be helpful to talk just generally about where we are. 
We had a hearing today in the Finance Committee on this topic. We had 
experts in from across the spectrum. Although they disagreed on some of 
the specifics about what we ought to do today, they all agreed with one 
thing, which is that our Tax Code is broken. It is not working.
  By the way, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan 
group that advises us on the economic impact of things, has looked at 
the Tax Code and said if you did deal with our high tax rates in this 
country and improved the corporate code, who benefits? It is the 
workers, and it is in terms of higher wages, better benefits, a job. 
This Congress has let the American people down, and it is time for us 
to deal with this issue and to deal with it in a way that can be 
nonpartisan.
  We have, again, both sides of the aisle agreeing this is broken, and 
yet we can't seem to find that common ground to fix it. I would suggest 
there is common ground out there if we just get off the politics and 
start working on how we actually help people to be able to get ahead.
  The issue that has come to the attention of all of us in Congress in 
the past few months the most is companies that are--what they call--
inverting. These inversions are when a company in the United States 
buys a company overseas, merges with it, and then it becomes an 
overseas company. Often these companies they are buying are smaller 
than the U.S. company, and they become a foreign company because they 
are trying to get as far away from our Tax Code as they can. They want 
to become domiciled--they want to have their headquarters--in a foreign 
country because that country has a better Tax Code for a corporation to 
be able to succeed.
  Again, there have been discussions on the floor recently about 
fiduciary responsibility. People do, if you are in corporate America, 
have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. So they are making 
these decisions, and Washington sits by the sidelines and lets it 
happen.
  I think the answer is to reform the Tax Code. I think we know what we 
have to do. I think we have to get busy on it.
  Last week we saw another example of this. It was a Chicago drug 
company called AbbVie. Their bid to acquire a company called Shire 
looks like it is going to go through, and their combined company is 
going to move its tax headquarters to the UK, to England. This is 
hardly the first company to do this, and it won't be the last unless we 
change the code.
  In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, 35 
companies have inverted in the past 5 years alone. I think the United 
States is still the best place to do business.
  Despite our bad Tax Code, we have the most productive workforce; we 
have the best infrastructure; we have the rule of law; we have some 
great research institutions; we have a lot going for us; and we can 
compete and attract business from around the world.
  So why are these companies going to England? Why are they going to 
the UK? Well, it turns out they have a tax code that was designed for 
this century, this decade--unlike here in America, where our 
international Tax Code was actually developed back in the 1960s. Things 
were a lot different then.
  Our Tax Code itself and the rates of taxation were established in 
1986. That is 25 years ago. The international system back to the 1960s, 
the rate we paid back to 1986--in 1986, ``Top Gun'' was the top at the 
box office. People still communicated by telegraph. The Mets were World 
Series champions. Pete Rose was playing for my hometown team, the 
Cincinnati Reds. That is how long ago it was.
  A lot has changed since then. The world has changed. The global 
economy is far more competitive. It is very difficult for us in the 
United States of America to have a policy that is not affected by that 
global economy. And yet while every other one of our global competitors 
has reformed their tax code, we have not. They all have.
  By the way, after the reform, the United Kingdom has a 21-percent 
corporate tax rate and they have a so-called territorial tax system. 
That basically means it taxes income in the UK if it is made in the UK, 
but otherwise it is taxed in the country where it is done. That means 
they have a competitive global tax system. By the way, about 93 percent 
of the companies that American companies compete with have that kind of 
more competitive international system. We have the old-style system.
  We also have a higher rate. So we have a deadly combination--a higher 
rate, 39-percent tax rate, which is now the highest among all the 
developed countries in the world--not a No. 1 you want to be--but we 
have also got this international system that is not competitive.
  So it is not a mystery why companies are leaving. When we look at the 
side-by-side, they are making decisions based on what is best for their 
shareholders. When we look at the changes in the tax rate since the 
1990s and 2000s, we can see the United States is falling further 
behind.
  Here is an interesting chart. This shows, just in 2004, what the tax 
rates were and now what they are in 2014. That is just 10 years ago. 
The United States is the same, 39 percent. And that 39 percent includes 
the Federal rate plus the State rate.
  People say, well, the effective rate is less than that. Yes, it is 
less than that because people do take advantage of some of the so-
called tax preferences. But even so, our rate is higher than these 
other countries.
  We go from 39 percent to 39 percent; the UK, 30 to 21; Canada, 34.4 
to 26, and they are going even lower at the Federal level; Netherlands, 
34.5 to 25 percent; Ireland, 12.5; Switzerland, 24 to 21. And they have 
gone to these territorial tax systems that we talked about.
  What has happened? Well, these are the companies that have left the 
United States of America to go to these countries. We mentioned Abbvi. 
That is the latest one last week. Medtronic, that was a couple weeks 
ago. On and on. There are companies in here from the State of Ohio. 
There is a company listed there from my home State of Ohio that chose 
to incorporate somewhere else because of the Tax Code. Guess what. They 
are going to save about $160 million on their tax bill this year. That 
is a pretty darned good savings, and that is wrong. We have to reform 
this Tax Code.
  In 1960, 17 of the world's largest 20 companies were U.S.-
headquartered. By 2010, only six were headquartered in the United 
States. In 2012 alone, our global 500 companies, the bigger companies' 
share fell from 36 percent to 26 percent.
  I am not saying it is all due to taxes, but a lot of it is. If we 
talk to these companies, we find that out.
  Again, I don't think anyone in the Senate--or in the White House, for 
that matter--disputes that tax reform is needed. I don't think so. Yet 
we aren't seeing it. Instead, again, we are hearing about these one-
offsies, these small things that seem politically popular but aren't 
going to make a difference in terms of truly bringing the jobs back and 
attracting more jobs--attracting companies that want to headquarter 
here in the United States of America.
  It is an admission that the United States is no longer the best place 
in the world to invest if we say we are going to require companies to 
do certain things so they can't follow the Tax Code. I think it is a 
futile effort to try to keep companies here with these new 
requirements, because ultimately if we do that and make it more 
disadvantageous to be an American company--so you have companies 
competing not just with one hand tied behind their back but with two 
hands tied behind their in a global economy--what will they do? Well, 
they will probably sell, because foreign companies can come in and buy 
them. And that has happened and is happening.
  If you are a beer drinker, like I am, try to find an American beer 
these days. The largest share is probably Sam Adams, with about 1.4 
percent market share. The rest are all foreign-owned. Yuengling is up 
there too at about 1.4 percent. But all of them. And foreign companies 
have come in here and bought these companies because they can pay a 
premium for them, because their aftertax profits are greater because 
their tax code in their country is more advantageous. Who does that 
hurt? It hurts American workers.

[[Page S4693]]

  I am not saying they don't have facilities here. They do. But when 
they move their corporate headquarters out of the United States, the 
tax headquarters out of the United States, the history is, when you 
look at this, that jobs follow--including the higher paid executive 
jobs.
  Also, an intangible but really important thing to American 
communities is, when you have a U.S. company headquartered here, they 
tend to invest in the communities. So think of the nonprofits involved 
with charities we help out with. There are probably some companies that 
help out there too and probably it is an American company.
  So of course we have to keep up with the times, and we aren't doing 
that. If we don't, we are going to see more and more companies leave 
our shores. I don't think these companies want to leave our shores. I 
think they are doing it because Washington is letting them down.
  Let's imagine for a second that a company did decide not to do one of 
these inversions because we did some one-off things, including to say: 
You ought to stay here. You ought to not take advantage of a company 
with a $160 million a year benefit.
  I think what is going to happen is we will see more and more 
companies become foreign companies. American workers and American jobs 
are going to be lost because we are going to see foreign companies come 
in and buy these U.S. companies.
  If we are truly patriots, economic patriots, we need to look at tax 
reform, and we need it as soon as possible. This can't, by the way, be 
just a Republican or Democrat priority. It needs to be an American 
priority. And it should be, because as far as I can tell in talking to 
people, the consensus is that it is broken. We have a pretty good sense 
of what we ought to do to try to fix it.
  One, I think we have a pretty good sense that we ought to reduce the 
rate. So the corporate rate ought to be reduced. I think it has to get 
down to at least 25 percent for us to be competitive. Back when we last 
did this in 1986, we purposefully lowered the rate under Ronald Reagan 
to get it down to 34 percent so it would be below the average of the 
other developed countries of the world. That is what we have to do 
again. So, at least 25 percent.
  And we need to do this, by the way, at the same time we eliminate 
some of these preferences, the deductions, the credits, the exclusions. 
I know that is tough, and some people are going to say: Well, gosh, I 
am going to lose my special preference or this is going to hurt my 
company. If they get a lower rate, one, they get a benefit. But, 
second, it helps the whole economy to have a lower rate.
  Economists who look at this all agree, this will generate economic 
growth and will result, by the way, in more revenues coming in through 
growth as well. So we broaden the base by getting rid of a lot of the 
preferences, take those savings to lower the rate.
  Then, finally, we need to do something about this international side. 
If we don't, we are not going to be able to be competitive. Even if we 
have a low tax rate, if we don't figure out a way to ensure we go to a 
system that is more like these other countries have all gone to--about 
93 percent of the companies that we compete with have this what is 
called territorial system where you tax income where it is earned. If 
we don't do that, then I think we are going to end up making this 
problem worse, not better, by some of these proposals that say let's 
just kick the can down the road and immediately do something to create 
a requirement on companies to do this or that.
  With regard to the anti-inversion rules, we are going to talk about 
that now. Let's not reform the Tax Code; let's just do something on 
inversions to make it harder to invert. We did that back in 2004. We 
enacted anti-inversion rules that were supposed to stop companies from 
moving overseas. As we saw in the first chart, that didn't work. 
Companies did anyway. And I don't think it is going to work today. In 
fact, I think it could make the problem worse, again, because those 
companies could then be targeted for foreign acquisition.
  So if businesses are more valuable overseas than the United States 
and businesses can't move under the U.S. themselves, I think the 
foreign corporations will step in and buy them.
  The Bring Jobs Home Act is a great title, and that is legislation we 
are going to consider here on the floor tomorrow. I think we ought to 
have a debate on it, so I am going to vote to proceed to have that 
debate. It is a great title, but I don't think there is anything in the 
legislation that is going to help to actually bring jobs back. I don't 
think anything in this legislation is going to address the fact that we 
have this high tax rate. I don't think there is anything in this 
legislation that is going to address the fact that we have a worldwide 
system that is way out of step with all our competitors.

  It claims to remove deductions and tax credits and incentivize 
companies to move overseas. Unfortunately, that is not as easy as it 
sounds because, according to the Joint Committee on Taxes, which is the 
group here that advises us, under present law there are no targeted tax 
credits or disallowance of deductions related to relocating business 
units inside or outside the United States. There aren't any. So it is 
sort of tough to say we are going to do something with regard to 
credits or disallowances of deductions when there are none that relate 
directly to that.
  There have been claims to the contrary that the media, looking at it 
routinely, says that is just false or misleading.
  Finally, when it comes to proposed deductions for bringing jobs back 
to our shores, the proposal would likely pose some really serious 
administrative difficulties for an Internal Revenue Service that 
already has plenty of problems. The legislation, as I read it, gives 
the IRS authority to subjectively judge whether the IRS thinks that 
business deductions were made specifically for the purpose of bringing 
jobs to the United States or moving jobs overseas. Because there are no 
specific targeted tax deductions for this, the IRS would have to 
somehow subjectively determine whether that was true. That is going to 
be tough, because multinational businesses create and close businesses 
around the globe every day, most times because it is the most 
economically efficient thing to do from a business perspective. They 
start a company, close a company, move them around. Asking the IRS to 
determine whether those decisions were made specifically to move jobs 
to the United States or to move jobs overseas I think is going to be 
impossible. That is why this legislation, if passed, is not going 
anywhere.
  I do appreciate my colleagues' hard work in trying to come up with 
real legislation to address the problem. Senator Wyden, who is the 
Democratic Chair of the Finance Committee, has been working on that, as 
have others. But this particular one is just not going to help. It is 
just not going to help. That fact should serve as a stark reminder that 
the only way we are going to stop these so-called inversions, the only 
way we are going to stop people from saying I would rather be a foreign 
company than a U.S. company is to make it more attractive to be here--
to do what we should have done over the last couple decades--and the 
rest of the world has; all of our competitors have--which is to reform 
our Tax Code so that it is good for American workers and good for 
American investors. If we do that, I think America's best days are 
ahead of us. I really do.
  There are a lot of things we need to do, as we talked about earlier, 
to make this country more competitive and to be sure we are creating 
the best jobs and the greatest opportunities here for everybody. But 
one thing we can do that will give the economy a shot in the arm right 
away is this comprehensive tax reform. When people have analyzed this 
from a macroeconomic basis, they say: If we did this--lower the rate by 
broadening the base, go to this competitive international system--we 
would generate a lot more investment and business in America. That 
would in turn generate a lot more investments, a lot more business here 
in America. That would in turn generate more revenue.
  So it is growth revenues, which is exactly what we want to see. We 
want to see more jobs, and we want to see us being able to have the 
kind of growth and prosperity so we can help to get out of this debt 
and deficit, which is a real problem. And, going forward, it is

[[Page S4694]]

a problem we are going to have to deal with, both because it affects 
the economy and because it affects what we are doing to future 
generations.
  As legislators, it is our job to fix this problem. That is what we 
were hired to do. I know it is not easy. I know corporate tax reform is 
tough to do, because we would take away benefits from one company or 
another by lowering that rate. But, by the way, when we do this--when 
we do lower that rate and get rid of some of these preferences to do 
so, guess what. Everybody has to pay taxes.
  People talk about it is unfair that some American companies in some 
years, because they get a tax break, don't pay taxes. Well, if they 
can't be as creative because there aren't all these deductions and 
credits and exemptions to be able to use, they are going to have to pay 
taxes. Everyone will pay. There will be a lower rate and they will be 
more competitive, and they won't be having this incentive to move 
offshore. But everybody will be paying taxes. And I think that is part 
of what we ought to be doing.
  To be able to compete and to succeed and to help American workers, it 
is time for us to make tax reform a reality. Let's not do things that 
might feel good politically and do some of these one-offs and half 
steps that in the end could inadvertently actually make it worse, not 
better--because, again, if we make it even more difficult to be an 
American company, we are just not going to have as many American 
companies because they will be bought by foreign companies that can pay 
more for them and pay a premium. Let's instead get busy doing what we 
were elected to do, which is to work across the aisle to come up with 
sensible tax reform, lowering that rate, a competitive international 
system, and ensuring that we do create more opportunities for American 
workers to be able to compete--not just survive but thrive in the 
global economy.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Malaysian Airline Flight 17

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to talk about the 
deteriorating situation in Syria and in Iraq. However, before I address 
the situation in the Middle East, I wish to speak briefly about Russia 
and the downing of the Malaysian Airline flight 17.
  Last week we all watched in horror as news came in of the almost 300 
civilians who were callously murdered. I have seen the intelligence on 
this attack, and it is very clear Russia bears the responsibility for 
the death of these civilians. Vladimir Putin should be held 
accountable, regardless of whether it was a Russian soldier or a 
Russian-sponsored separatist who pulled the trigger. Russia either shot 
down the plane itself or directly gave separatists the order and the 
ability to do so.
  Russia and its proxy separatists in eastern Ukraine are well armed, 
as was clearly demonstrated last week, and they are also very 
irresponsible. President Putin continues to flout the international 
community by sending heavy weapons and fighters into eastern Ukraine. 
In addition, Russia is supporting Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria and 
failing to comply with some of its international arms control 
obligations.
  The limited sanctions put in place so far have done little to deter 
Putin. In addition to simply increasing sanctions, President Obama must 
show strength and leadership and rally the international community to 
secure the crash site, conduct a thorough investigation, and hold the 
Russians, and particularly Putin, accountable for this unthinkable 
attack. Now is not the time for half measures. Swift and decisive 
action is needed to deal with this situation.


                            The Middle East

  With regard to the Middle East, the rise of the al-Nusra Front and 
ISIL--the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant--presents a serious and 
credible threat to the security of the region, to the United States of 
America, and to our allies. Yet despite repeated requests from me and 
other Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, the 
administration has yet to present a compelling plan to counter this 
growing threat. The administration seems determined to keep its head in 
the sand, but this threat simply cannot be ignored. This same wait-and-
see mentality is just more of what got us into this mess with Syria in 
the first place.
  ISIL is gaining strength, capturing arms and equipment, and closing 
in on Baghdad. ISIL in recent weeks has purportedly garnered hundreds 
of millions of dollars, thousands of fighters, and countless weapons. 
We have seen ISIL parade around with 4 U.S.-made howitzers and MRAPs. 
In the absence of resistance from MRAPs and other forces, ISIL is able 
to consolidate its gains, redistribute its captured material, and 
recruit additional fighters. As ISIL has taken territory, it has also 
ransacked several prisons, providing it with an even larger fighting 
force, all of this in preparation for an assault on Baghdad.
  ISIL is clearly preparing to attack Baghdad, which will inevitably 
include terrorist attacks against Western interests and possibly 
including the international airport and the U.S. Embassy. ISIL fighters 
have plotted and conducted terrorist attacks in Baghdad over the past 
decade and it is naive to think they will not continue. We can wait for 
ISIL to descend on Baghdad with its newly acquired weaponry or we can 
take the fight to them before they reach the Capitol.
  In addition to closing in on Baghdad, ISIL has its sights set on 
Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and other parts of the region. On June 25 of 
this year, we saw an ISIL suicide bomber detonate himself in a Beirut 
hotel after being discovered by security forces. This is not the only 
attack we have seen outside of Iraq and Syria. Lebanon in recent months 
has been besieged by violence linked to the conflict in Iraq and Syria, 
and it is only a matter of time before these attacks spread to Jordan 
as well as to Israel.
  ISIL not only represents a credible threat to the region but to 
Europe and the United States as well. Earlier this year we witnessed an 
armed attack on a Jewish Museum in Brussels. The attacker, a 29-year-
old French national, had returned from fighting in Syria and was 
arrested with an ISIL flag wrapped around his rifle. Alarmingly, the 
cell's leader had been arrested in Afghanistan in 2001 and was also a 
former Guantanamo Bay detainee. Individuals linked to ISIL and Syrian 
extremist groups have been arrested in other parts of Europe, including 
Germany and France.
  ISIL's aspirations don't end in Europe but extend to the United 
States. The group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has been clear about 
the group's ultimate goal of confronting the United States, and as a 
country we must be prepared for this threat. Many of ISIL's leaders 
have threatened the United States for years under the banner of Al 
Qaeda and Iraq. These fighters have been planning attacks against 
Baghdad and are responsible for the deaths of many U.S. servicemembers 
over the last decade.
  One of the biggest lessons we learned from the September 11 attacks 
was that we cannot give terrorists a sanctuary from which to plan 
attacks against us. Arguably, ISIL now has control of the largest 
territory ever held by a terrorist group. This safe haven provides ISIL 
with the time and space they need to train fighters and plan 
operations. It also has provided them with access to weapons and a 
network that can be used to support external operations. We knew about 
the threat we faced from Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, but we failed to act. 
I just hope we don't make the same mistake again.
  ISIL isn't the only threat we face in Iraq and Syria. Experienced 
fighters and jihadists have flocked to Syria, forming several groups 
that could threaten the United States, including the Al Qaeda-
affiliated al-Nusra Front. Several U.S. citizens and legal permanent 
residents have traveled to Syria to join the al-Nusra Front and other 
groups. In May we witnessed Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American 
suicide bomber in Syria, carry out

[[Page S4695]]

an attack that is believed to have killed almost 40 Syrian personnel.

  A Florida native, Abusalha was eulogized by a recruitment video 
featuring images of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center 
and a burning American flag.
  The White House recently announced plans to increase support for the 
Syrian opposition, including a $500 million plan to train and equip 
vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. Despite the announcement, few 
details are available on how this training would actually take place, 
and it may be quite some time before this program begins. It is also 
unclear how this new program to train Syrian opposition fighters will 
actually help counter the growing terrorist threat in Syria as opposed 
to simply countering the Assad regime. It is clear the administration 
has not prepared any plan that will fit into a cohesive and compelling 
foreign policy in the region.
  The Middle East over the last 3 years has been besieged by a 
resurgence of instability, violence, and terrorism. The administration, 
unfortunately, has done little to stop it. Instead of focusing on 
countering rising groups in Iraq and Syria, the administration has been 
focused on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which appears to 
have had the unfortunate consequence of letting America's enemies grow 
stronger.
  Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other terrorist groups are determined 
to attack the United States. We constantly face new plots and 
operatives looking for ways to murder Americans, such as the foiled May 
2012 AQAP plot to put another IED on a U.S.-bound commercial aircraft. 
Thankfully, this plot and others have not materialized, but we are not 
going to always be so fortunate. Just this month TSA was forced to 
institute new security measures to mitigate the terrorist threat to 
commercial aviation. The administration must come to grips with the 
terrorist threats we face and put policies in place that will 
effectively counter them. I would encourage the administration to act 
immediately before another act of terrorism against our country occurs.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________