[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.
____________________