[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4723-S4728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar 
No. 453, S. 2569, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, S. 2569, a bill to 
     provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to 
     America.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I listened carefully as the Republican leader came to the 
floor to talk about the Senate issues, and he failed to mention this 
issue, S. 2569, which we will be voting on in 1 hour and 10 minutes. In 
fact, we have listened carefully. There has not been a single 
Republican Senator who has come to the floor to literally debate this 
issue or to disagree with this bill. What is this measure that is the 
source of such a mystery on the floor of the Senate?
  Well, it is an effort by Senator John Walsh of Montana and Senator 
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan to bring good-paying manufacturing and 
other jobs back home to America. Wouldn't you think that would be worth 
a comment from the Republican leader or perhaps from one of the 
Republican Senators? I hope it means they are going to join us in a 
bipartisan effort in a little over 1 hour to bring this measure to the 
floor.
  What does it say? Simple. We will give a tax break to companies that 
bring jobs home from overseas. We will reduce the current tax 
incentives for companies to ship American jobs overseas. There it is--
straightforward, clear--bring the jobs home.
  I would think this would be so bipartisan it would get a unanimous 
vote at 11 o'clock. But the fact is, despite the support of all 
Democratic Senators, we are still struggling to find five Republicans 
who will join us so we can move to this measure and do something in the 
Tax Code to help bring American jobs back home instead of shipping them 
overseas.

[[Page S4724]]

  Senator Reid, our majority leader, spoke this morning about another 
aspect of this issue. Sadly, in my home State of Illinois, a major 
company, AbbVie, which was formerly part of Abbot Laboratories, the 
eighth largest pharmaceutical company, just announced last week they 
are going to relocate their corporate base of operations to an island 
off the U.K.
  The U.K. is a beautiful country, but to think that American companies 
such as Abbot--now AbbVie--are prepared to desert America, is worth a 
little reflection.
  Senator Reid raised an important point. Pharmaceutical companies in 
America depend on tax-supported organizations and agencies. The 
National Institutes of Health, the leading biomedical research agency 
in the world, is supported by American tax dollars. Pharmaceutical 
companies like AbbVie, with blockbuster drugs such as Humira, which has 
earned them over $1 billion so far this year, rely on the NIH for 
research and then rely on the taxpayer-supported U.S. Patent Office to 
protect their legal rights.
  They also count on the Food and Drug Administration, supported with 
U.S. tax dollars, to do the testing necessary to bring this drug to 
market. It is said the approval by the FDA of a drug in the United 
States is really the gold standard--more than any other country.
  So here is a pharmaceutical company which is very profitable, with 
over 4,000 employees, based in the United States, based in the State of 
Illinois for virtually its entire existence, now picking up and 
leaving. Why? They are leaving to avoid paying taxes in the United 
States.
  What is the definition of a corporate ingrate? I think it would start 
with a company that has become immensely profitable because of the 
United States of America and the agencies of its government that 
support that company which is now turning its back on the United 
States.
  Across the street the Supreme Court tells us with regularity we have 
to view corporations now as persons. They are no longer legal 
creations. They have some personhood under the Constitution, according 
to five of our Supreme Court justices--personhood that entitles them to 
freedom of speech under the Citizens United decision, personhood which 
entitles them under the Hobby Lobby decision to have religious freedom 
as a corporation.

  So if we are going to give personhood to corporations, what can we 
say of this decision to renounce their American citizenship to get a 
tax break?
  I think what we can say is these inverters are deserters, to quote 
Allan Sloan and others who have written about this issue in the past.
  I am troubled by this, and I am troubled there isn't a sense of 
outrage on both sides of the aisle.
  Senator Reid has spoken about this issue, I have spoken to it, 
Senator Levin of Michigan has been a leader on this issue, and yet the 
Republicans are strangely silent. Do they believe it is in the best 
interests of the United States for our major corporations to pick up, 
cut and run, go to some foreign land, claim this is now their new 
headquarters, and avoid paying taxes in the United States?
  This process, known as inversion, is a clever tax dodge. At the end 
of the day, who loses? Well, I can tell you. The taxpayers in this 
country lose because valuable revenue and resources are no longer there 
to sustain our great Nation, whether it is the defense of this country, 
the building of infrastructure, great agencies like the National 
Institutes of Health--the list goes on. There will be money lost.
  Who are the winners? The winners are those investment bankers, folks 
who are buying up these corporations and coming up with these tax 
dodges and incentives to raise stock prices at any cost.
  I often wonder, as I look at the list of members of the boards of 
directors of AbbVie and Walgreens, if there wasn't in their boardroom 
one person who held up their hand and said: Does anybody else feel a 
little sick about this--that we would give up on America, that AbbVie 
would renounce its American citizenship; that we would listen to those 
who say stock price is more important than loyalty to the country we 
live in, the country we have prospered in? Was there one hand in the 
air dissenting from this corporate desertion of the United States?
  I think this is worth a debate. I think it is worth bringing this 
bill to the floor, S. 2569. In a little over 1 hour we will have a 
chance to decide whether it should come to the floor. There aren't many 
things that we do around here that have an impact on the lives of 
Americans. This one will. This bill will bring jobs home from overseas.
  Senator Reid has suggested we move into the inversion--a change in 
the Tax Code. I support that. I am a cosponsor of Senator Levin's bill. 
That, to me, is overdue. Last week Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew 
issued a statement about this warning us this was just the beginning; a 
dozen corporations are now working on this.
  One of the corporate leaders on the street, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan 
Chase, said in Fortune magazine: We shouldn't moralize about this 
decision.
  He characterized it as largely a protest against the Tax Code--the 
unfair Tax Code.
  I wish to remind Mr. Dimon and the CEOs and members of the boards of 
these corporations, this Tax Code, which certainly should be reformed, 
is the same Tax Code that has generated record-breaking corporate 
profits and record-breaking CEO salaries.
  I didn't hear complaints about that so-called unfair Tax Code when 
these corporations were making record-breaking profits or getting 
compensation at record-breaking levels. It troubles me too that many of 
the corporations that are now rationalizing abandoning the United 
States not that long ago were counting on this government and taxpayers 
all across the United States to bail them out.
  When the Wall Street banks were failing, when AIG was flat on its 
back, did they turn to Ireland or Switzerland for help? No. They turned 
to Washington and the United States of America and to the taxpayers who 
came through with billions of dollars to save them from their perfidy.
  That is the reality of history, a reality which many of these 
corporate deserters are now ignoring. I have trouble with this--
clearly, a great deal of trouble. I am going to offer an amendment, 
should we get on this bill, called the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act.
  Very simply, here is what it says: If you have a corporation in the 
United States, headquartered in our country, and you have not moved 
jobs overseas; if you pay your employees at least $15 an hour, which 
means they don't qualify for most Federal benefits, just their 
paycheck; if you will give them quality health insurance as required by 
the Affordable Care Act; if you will provide at least 5 percent of 
their income as a contribution by the company toward their retirement; 
and if you will give a preference for the hiring of veterans, you will 
be entitled to the patriot employer tax credit, a credit for each of 
your employees. I think that is the proper incentive--incentivizing and 
rewarding companies that are making a positive difference in the lives 
of their employees, staying in the United States, committed to this 
country.
  How would I pay for that? Well, I have an idea. It would end the 
deductions currently available for corporations that want to move their 
jobs overseas. To me, that makes perfect sense. Encourage the payment 
of Americans in good-paying companies and discourage sending jobs 
overseas.
  Why won't the Republicans discuss this with us? Why isn't this a 
bipartisan issue? Do they honestly believe only Democrats object to 
shipping American jobs overseas? Everyone objects to it. We want to 
keep good-paying jobs at home. We want to be able to walk into stores 
and see the label ``Made in the U.S.A.'' more often. We want to 
encourage our companies to stay in America, to set the standard in 
America, to lead in the world. Let's have a tax code that helps us 
reach that goal.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of

[[Page S4725]]

the quorum call be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans 
for the remainder of the debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Bring Jobs 
Home Act. There has been some discussion on the floor about this act 
already, but I wish to lend my voice to that. This is a commonsense 
bill to bring good-paying middle-class jobs back to America.
  When we look at the terrible recession this Nation went through a few 
years ago, we have seen that our recovery has been sluggish. One of the 
reasons it has been sluggish is because these good middle-class jobs in 
many cases just aren't here anymore. They have gone overseas. They have 
gone to China, Mexico, Vietnam, and other countries around the globe. 
They are not here.
  We need to grow this economy from the middle. We have the statistics 
to see that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting 
poorer. That should concern everyone in this Chamber. I know it 
concerns economists and it concerns people all over the country. These 
are kitchen-table issues for people. We need to grow our economy from 
the middle. That is what this proposed act is all about.
  My home State of Arkansas is a good example. We have seen good 
companies, such as Levi Strauss, Whirlpool, Fruit of the Loom--these 
are name-brand companies. Everybody knows these companies. We have seen 
them, one after the other, leave Arkansas, abandon our State and our 
Nation to go find cheap wages overseas.
  To rub salt in the wounds, through their hard-earned tax dollars, 
these very same workers have helped pay for the companies to move their 
jobs overseas because the companies are able to write off the move 
overseas as a business expense. In effect, the U.S. taxpayer ends up 
helping to export jobs out of the United States. It is a policy that 
does not make sense. It is a policy we need to change. That is one part 
of the Bring Jobs Home Act that is critically important that we pass as 
quickly as possible. I think most of my colleagues will agree with me 
when they say this tax giveaway is counterproductive. In fact, it is 
outrageous that we continue to allow this to happen.
  Fortunately, even though my State has lost some jobs, we have some 
very good job replacements as well. Last week I had the good pleasure 
and fortune of meeting with a man in Rogers, AR, named Bill Redman, the 
founder and CEO of a small toy company. This toy company has moved its 
operation from China to Rogers, AR, in the northwest corner of the 
State, because the economics of manufacturing now favor ``Made in the 
U.S.A.'' That is very positive.
  We are seeing this with companies all over the country, and we would 
see even more of it if we passed the Bring Jobs Home Act.
  A study shows that the $18.55-an-hour average wage created by this 
toy company I was talking about--created by his company in Arkansas--
will pump $3 million back into the local economy. So if he pays his 
people $18.55, the stimulative effect of that is $3 million into the 
local economy. It also shows that each job he creates will support four 
other jobs that provide services to what he is doing. These may be 
truckdrivers, they may be people who print the boxes or the labels or 
make the containers or whatever it is, but for every job he creates, 
there are four other jobs that are created. So there is a huge 
multiplier effect in bringing jobs home to America.
  If we see that in Rogers, AR, we know we see that in the other 50 
States of the Union. So if we want to keep America as a nation of 
makers--and that is in our DNA as a nation. We make things in this 
country. We have always done it. We have always done it better than 
anybody else in the world. If we want to keep America a nation of 
makers, we need more companies like Redman & Associates in Arkansas, 
but this will only happen if we tip the scale in the right direction, 
and that is what this Bring Jobs Home Act is all about.
  The policy that we make here in the Senate or that we don't make here 
in the Senate has a huge bearing on what the future of the Nation will 
look like. So let's do the right thing. Let's end this tax giveaway for 
the companies that ship their jobs overseas to places such as Mexico 
and China and many other countries. Let's instead provide meaningful 
tax incentives for those jobs to come back home, to create these good-
paying middle-class jobs right here in the good old U.S.A.
  From my standpoint, this is good commonsense policy, it is good 
commonsense economics, and I hope my colleagues will join me as well as 
many others of us here in this Chamber in supporting this Bring Jobs 
Home Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes and 
start by talking about these court cases yesterday that create more 
complications particularly for the President's health care plan.
  The idea that the law is specific, which is what the Washington, DC, 
Federal Court of Appeals said--the law specifically says, in the case 
they dealt with, that people can only get the taxpayer subsidy if they 
work through the State exchanges. There is no question that the law, in 
dealing with this issue, in clear language makes that case, and the 
judges agreed that was the case made.
  What happened was that not only did many States decide not to set up 
the exchanges because of the expense involved and the problems involved 
and the complications of the law, but even the States that did set up 
the exchanges couldn't get them to work. I don't know that any State 
spent more money than Oregon did--certainly they spent a lot of money--
and in the first 6 months did not sign up anybody--nobody. Not a single 
person was able to sign up through the exchange they set up.
  Massachusetts--a State which actually had experience with its own law 
and which I would have thought would have been the easiest possible 
exchange to set up--also admitted they failed. Massachusetts has to go 
through the Federal exchange.
  I think 36 States have either not set up the exchange or tried to and 
failed. So in 36 States the only option people have to get insurance in 
an exchange as an individual--many of their policies were previously 
canceled because of the law--is to go to the Federal exchange. Now, 
through a ruling in the DC court, they say you can go to the Federal 
exchange. We should understand this.
  I have been on record saying I think people should try their best to 
have insurance. If the insurance people need is what the Federal 
Government prescribes people should have--and that is insurance people 
can afford--obviously the exchange can be a place to get it, and it is 
a place to get insurance whether it is subsidized or not. But many 
people will find that those new higher rates at the exchange, without 
taxpayer assistance, just don't work for them.
  The law was poorly written. It was poorly structured. It was crammed 
down the throats of the minority in both the House and in the Senate 
and, in my view, the health care providers and people who want 
insurance in this country, in the way it was passed.
  There are many lessons to be learned from the Affordable Care Act, 
and one is never pass a piece of legislation this way because the 
Richmond court said yesterday that there are other places in the law--
even though they surely said it was clear where the law refers to 
subsidizing people to get insurance

[[Page S4726]]

through the exchange, and they surely knew that was clear, they said 
there are other places in the law that indicate maybe that is not the 
way it was.
  Why is that? Why wasn't that debated on the floor of the Senate and 
on the floor of the House? It wasn't debated because one side decided 
they were going to do this exactly the way they wanted to do it and 
they were going to do it by themselves. There was that brief moment 
where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate. They passed the current 
law that I fully believe nobody expected would be the health care law.
  The way we used to pass laws in the Congress, through the entire 
constitutional history of the country, was that the Senate would pass a 
bill, the House would pass a bill, and then we would go to conference 
and figure out, No. 1, how the two bills came together and, No. 2, what 
didn't make as much sense--when we had time to step back and look at 
it--as it seemed to make in the heat of the floor debate.
  That didn't happen with this law. Why didn't it happen with this law? 
Because by the time the Senate passed the bill and it was time for the 
House to deal with it, there were suddenly 59 Senators on the 
Democratic side in the majority of the Senate. We remember the Scott 
Brown election in Massachusetts. Everybody was surprised except maybe 
Scott Brown, but he was elected, so there were no longer 60 votes in 
the Senate, which is what it takes to do whatever the majority wants to 
do.
  So apparently the message to the House of Representatives, controlled 
by the Democrats and Speaker Pelosi, was the only way we are going to 
pass a health care bill that goes anywhere near this floor is to pass 
the bill the Senate passed. There will be no conference. There will be 
no cleaning up this piece of legislation. There will be no discussion 
as to what we can do to actually make this work. We are going to pass 
this bill.

  Not a single Republican in the Senate voted for it, and not a single 
Republican in the House would vote for it.
  What is the unintended consequence of that? How do we go back and 
clean up the bill? People decided, if they participated in that 
process, that their momentary power was so important they were not 
going to involve anybody else's ideas in a way that would get a single 
vote from the other side.
  One of the great lessons to learn is if we are going to mess with 
everybody's health care and we are going to impact 16 or 18 percent of 
the entire economy, they better have buy-in from more than just one 
group of Americans who represent one political party or one point of 
view.
  So now we have this confusion that will go on until I assume the 
Supreme Court determines the difference in these two Federal courts of 
appeal decisions, but it will be months before that happens. We will 
see if taxpayers subsidize others getting their insurance. We will see 
what happens to people who got a subsidy if the subsidy turns out to be 
one that was inappropriately given. And we will see how we move 
forward.
  Then there is also this discussion going on--some of which we had on 
the floor last week--about religious freedom as it relates to that law. 
There is a so-called accommodation for religious groups who don't 
believe they should have to pay for certain things. The Little Sisters 
of the Poor--who, by the way, were listed on one advocacy group for the 
law as it was being applied--the Little Sisters of the Poor were listed 
as one of the 100 dirty employers in America because they worked with 
100 church groups and others who tried to take this idea to court that 
people could be forced to do things that violate their faith 
principles. If we have come to a point that the Little Sisters of the 
Poor are one of the evil employers in America, we better think about 
how we got to this point.
  Actually, Justice Sotomayor gave, on her own--the Little Sisters of 
the Poor said: Not only do we not want to do that, we don't agree with 
the so-called accommodation that if we sign a paper saying we don't 
want to do this but our insurance company will--what did the Little 
Sisters of the Poor think was wrong with that? What could possibly be 
wrong with that? All they are asked to do is to sign a piece of paper 
that says they believe it is wrong but it is OK with them if somebody 
else pays for it. That is obviously not right. Justice Sotomayor, on 
her own, gave the relief the Little Sisters of the Poor asked for, but 
then only a few weeks later she is outraged when the rest of the Court 
gives the exact same relief to Wheaton College.
  Wheaton College--a Christian college near Chicago and the President's 
home State--has a long-term commitment to their faith principles, and 
they basically said: We are just like the Little Sisters of the Poor. 
We don't believe this is right, and we don't want to sign a piece of 
paper that says we think it is wrong but it is OK with us if somebody 
else pays for it.
  Then, in a story I just read today, there was the constant concern 
that the health care plan narrows one's ability to get health care 
because it restricts the network one can go to. In at least one State, 
half of the hospitals in the State don't participate in anything people 
could get access to through the Affordable Care Act as an individual or 
a family. So people have to drive by their old hospital, drive by their 
old doctor's office to get to a doctor or a hospital that may or may 
not see them. I think the hospital has to see you; I don't think the 
doctor does. But people have to drive by the old to get to the new.
  We just had this big discussion. I had the great opportunity to speak 
at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday, 
and obviously, as did everybody else there, I had on my mind what was 
happening with the Veterans' Administration. At the same time we are 
talking about how to give veterans more choices, we are talking about 
how to give everybody else fewer choices.
  This is a great quote: Networks help to contain costs. Well, of 
course they do. If a person can't get to see the doctor or it is 
inconvenient to go to the hospital, of course it contains costs.
  Then we have the bill on the floor this week about economic 
opportunity, economic advancement. One of the great attacks on economic 
opportunity has been the attack on the 40-hour workweek. What happened 
to the 40-hour workweek for many people working in this country? The 
Federal Government, for the first time ever, said employers have to 
provide insurance and this is what it has to look like. Whether you can 
afford it as an employer or not, whether your employees want to take it 
or not, you have to provide insurance. This is what it is supposed to 
look like for everybody who works 30 hours or more.
  Actions have consequences. No matter what the administration might 
think about EPA rules on water, EPA rules on the utility bill, HHS 
rules on health care, actions have consequences, and a lot of people 
who used to work 40 hours now may be working 50 hours, but they are 
doing it at two different jobs, neither of which has benefits. The 40-
hour job that in more cases than not had benefits that both the 
employer and the employee thought were good--and 85 percent of 
everybody who got health insurance at work thought it was good, thought 
it met their needs--85 percent. Most people had insurance at work, but 
now many people go to work without insurance, while the only people at 
the place they go to work who get insurance are the managers and the 
longtime employees or the people who work more than 30 hours.
  The chances to advance if you are in a part-time job are a lot less 
than the chances to advance if you are in a full-time job. I suggest if 
we were really trying to get people to work here this week, instead of 
making political points, we would be talking about the 40-hour 
workweek, we would be talking about the advanced manufacturing bill the 
Senator from Ohio Mr. Brown and I have that others are very interested 
in--and it is bipartisan interest--we would be talking about the BRIDGE 
Act that allows more infrastructure building that Senator Warner and I 
have--another bipartisan piece of legislation--we would be talking 
about the Build America Act that helps State and local governments with 
infrastructure by allowing companies--the very companies, apparently, 
that are being talked about this week in a piece of legislation 
everybody knows cannot pass that has no bipartisan support--we would be 
talking about companies that would be allowed to bring profits they 
have made overseas--they pay taxes on it overseas--that they would

[[Page S4727]]

be allowed to bring those profits here in a way that would encourage 
State and local governments to expand their infrastructure and maintain 
their infrastructure, making their sewer system, their water system, 
their road and bridge system all work better.
  The unintended consequences of not thinking through what is the 
constitutional responsibility of the House and the Senate are 
significant. We need to understand the impact of what we do and the 
impact of what we fail to do. Failing to have a health care system that 
meets people's needs, failing to have a 40-hour workweek where we 
figure out how to encourage rather than discourage--failing to get 
people into that first job is a failure that lasts for a long time. If 
you do not advance in your twenties at work as you should, when you get 
to be 30, somebody else in a better economy in their twenties is likely 
to pass you because the opportunity you had was disrupted by 
circumstances that the government could not control or in many cases 
today circumstances the government could control and actually works in 
a way that makes those circumstances worse, not better.
  I would like to see us do the kinds of things that get people to 
work, talk about the kind of legislation that is bipartisan, that could 
pass both Houses of Congress. There are plenty of them out there. I 
continue to hope we figure out how to get to it.
  I yield the floor.
  If nobody is prepared to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam 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. Madam President, in a few minutes we are going to have 
the opportunity to make it clear to the American people that we get it, 
that we understand, that we need to be bringing jobs home to America, 
that it is not acceptable we have lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. 
In fact, as we see more companies coming back to the United States, we 
need to reward them. We need to say: We are open for business. Come on 
back. And we are going to make sure we have a Tax Code that supports 
those decisions.
  The Bring Jobs Home Act, which Senator Walsh is leading--and I want 
to commend him. I know he has talked to me about how important it is to 
his State of Montana. It certainly is to my State of Michigan as well. 
We have this opportunity, through Senator Walsh's Bring Jobs Home Act, 
to show that we are going to begin the process of making our tax system 
work for American workers, American businesses, and communities.
  So we have a vote in a few minutes on whether to proceed to this 
bill. It is not the final vote. The question is, is this an important 
enough topic that we would actually proceed to the bill? That is the 
question. Because there has been objection to just proceeding, as we 
know, we have to get 60 votes, a supermajority, to proceed. I would 
hope this is something we would see 100 people--everybody in the U.S. 
Senate--agree that, yes, we should be debating this issue of how we 
bring jobs home to America. I cannot imagine a more critical issue for 
everyone whom we represent.
  This bill is very simple. First of all, if you are packing up and 
leaving this country, you should not be able to write off the cost. The 
worker who helps pack the equipment that is going to be going overseas 
should not be paying the bill through the Tax Code. The community that 
sees the factory empty once the business leaves should not be paying 
through the Tax Code for the costs of the move. So this bill says no 
more writeoffs if you are leaving the country.
  On the other hand, if you want to bring jobs home, you can write off 
those costs that our Tax Code will allow you to take as a business 
expense and--because we think it is so important--we will add another 
20-percent tax credit on top of it.
  So, very simply, if you want to come home, we are all in. We want to 
support you doing that. We congratulate those businesses that are 
making the right business decision right now--for a lot of good 
reasons: low energy costs, a high-skilled workforce. There are a lot of 
reasons why folks are coming home. But if you want to leave, you are on 
your own. That is what the bill is all about. I hope everyone will vote 
to proceed to the Bring Jobs Home Act.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam President, I rise today regarding an issue that is 
crucial to our country's economic future. In recent decades we have 
seen too many multinational corporations close factories in the United 
States while at the same time opening new plants in other countries, 
getting rid of American jobs and creating jobs overseas. It is wrong, 
and it strikes the heart of American competitiveness.
  Too many big businesses are engaged in this harmful race to the 
bottom. They are moving their business operations out of America to 
countries with lower wages and fewer worker protections, and they are 
costing Americans jobs.
  Businesses make decisions in order to make profits, which is usually 
good for jobs and growing our economy. But it is outrageous that 
American workers are forced to subsidize decisions that send American 
jobs overseas.
  Under our current Tax Code, corporations can claim a deduction for 
expenses associated with closing operations in the United States and 
moving them overseas. This is a fundamentally wrong policy that 
encourages multinational corporations to send jobs abroad.
  I believe that leveling the playing field for American workers should 
be a nonpartisan issue. That is why I have sponsored the Bring Jobs 
Home Act. I would like to thank my fellow sponsor, Senator Stabenow, 
for her tireless effort and work on behalf of American workers. I say 
to Senator Stabenow, you are respected around the country for your 
service and what you are doing.
  The Bring Jobs Home Act is a straightforward bill. First, companies 
will no longer be able to claim a tax deduction for the costs of moving 
jobs overseas. This just makes sense. I imagine most Americans would be 
shocked to learn that multinational corporations are allowed to claim 
such a tax break. I am also sure that most small business owners, who 
cannot take advantage of this tax break, would also be outraged.
  Taxpayers should not be asked to continue to foot the bill for the 
costs associated with shutting down factories in the United States in 
order to move jobs to countries such as China or Mexico.
  Second, the Bring Jobs Home Act will create a new 20-percent tax 
credit for companies that bring jobs back to the United States.
  It is time we set new priorities for American job creation. We should 
be doing everything we possibly can to encourage job growth and 
creation here in the United States.
  In Montana, where I am from, Montanans believe in American workers 
and the power of American industry and innovation. We believe that 
American workers are essential to America's economy. But they need and 
deserve a level playing field.
  Since the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, many of our constituents 
have been trapped in a vicious cycle of instability and uncertainty 
that comes with long-term unemployment. We want to see more job 
opportunities for Americans. It is our responsibility as leaders to 
bring our jobs back home. So today I urge my colleagues to stand with 
American workers and vote for this bill.
  There are companies out there right now that are considering bringing 
business activities back to the United States. We must do everything we 
possibly can to help those companies create jobs and grow our American 
economy right here at home.
  In Montana people take pride in producing quality products here at 
home. I recently toured a company in Manhattan, MT--Blackhawk--that 
manufactures top-of-the-line outdoor gear and sporting goods for 
sportsmen and women, military, and law enforcement. It is an example of 
American ingenuity, putting Montanans to work on American soil.
  It is time for Congress to show true leadership and put partisan 
politics

[[Page S4728]]

aside. So today I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting 
bringing American jobs back to America.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 453, S. 2569, a bill to provide an 
     incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to America.
         Harry Reid, John E. Walsh, Debbie Stabenow, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, Tom Harkin, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Tom Udall, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Christopher Murphy, Tammy Baldwin, Jon Tester, Mark 
           Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse, Carl Levin, Christopher A. 
           Coons.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for 
businesses to bring jobs back to America, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--7

     Coburn
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Paul
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 93, the nays are 7. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                            Clark Nomination

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm 
Julia Clark to a second term as general counsel of the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority.
  The Federal Labor Relations Authority oversees the program in place 
at the Federal Government to maintain fair and efficient labor-
management relations at agencies across the government. The general 
counsel fulfills key responsibilities in these efforts, including 
investigating and prosecuting allegations of unfair labor practices.
  Ms. Clark has served in this position for almost five years, and has 
fulfilled her responsibilities effectively and with distinction.
  However, her term expires on August 7--just 15 days from today. If 
the Senate allows her term to lapse without reconfirming her, the 
position will become vacant and, by law, no one else can fulfill the 
functions of her office. Our inaction will cause a backlog of 
complaints and appeals to form.
  This has happened before, and Ms. Clark spent much of her first year 
as general counsel clearing a backlog that developed because of a 
previous vacancy.
  Ms. Clark is highly qualified, and we must fulfill our constitutional 
duty and confirm Ms. Clark today in order to allow her to continue 
doing her job.

                          ____________________