[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5398-S5409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 
     RELATING TO CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES INTENDED TO AFFECT 
                ELECTIONS--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, more than 40 years ago, in New York Times 
v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan described ``a profound national 
commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be 
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'' The measure now before the Senate 
shows that this commitment is in serious jeopardy.
  Next week marks the 227th anniversary of the drafting of the U.S. 
Constitution. Those who participated in that process agreed that 
individual liberty requires limits on government power, but they 
differed on how explicit and extensive those limits should be. Many 
thought the simple act of delegating enumerated powers to the Federal 
Government and reserving the rest to the States would be enough. Others 
were more skeptical of government power and insisted that the 
Constitution needed a bill of rights. Those skeptics, however, were not 
skeptical enough. The measure before us today, S.J. Res. 19, would 
allow the government to control and even prohibit what Americans say 
and do in the political process.
  Yesterday a member of the majority leadership said this measure is 
``narrowly tailored.'' It is possible to believe that only if you have 
never read S.J. Res. 19 and know nothing about either the Supreme 
Court's precedents or past proposals of this kind. This is not the 
first attempt at empowering the government to suppress political 
speech, but it is the most extreme.
  Four elements of this proposal are particularly troubling.
  First, its purpose is to advance what it calls ``political 
equality.'' None of the constitutional amendments previously proposed 
to control political speech has made such a claim. The irony is 
astounding. At the very time in our history when technology is 
naturally leveling the political playing

[[Page S5399]]

field, this proposal would give the power to define political equality 
to government. If simply suggesting that the government should have the 
power to enforce its own version of political equality is not enough to 
oppose this proposal, then our liberties are in even greater danger 
than I thought.
  In addition to its stated purpose, this proposal is also troubling 
because of the power it would give to government. Past proposals of 
this kind were very specific about what government could or should 
regulate. One measure, for example, covered expenditures made ``to 
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified 
candidate for Federal office.'' More recently, proposed amendments 
covered expenditures made ``in support of, or opposition to, a 
candidate.'' The proposal before us today, however, says that 
government may regulate ``the raising and spending of money by 
candidates and others to influence elections.'' That is all it says. It 
would allow government to control the raising and spending of money by 
anyone doing anything at any time to influence elections. No proposal 
of this kind has ever been drafted more broadly.
  The same Democratic Senator who yesterday claimed this proposal is 
narrowly tailored referred to big-money campaign donors, high rollers, 
and for-profit corporations with unlimited budgets. I urge not only my 
colleagues but everyone listening to this debate to read S.J. Res. 19. 
Just read it. My liberal friends may want to paint certain billionaires 
or for-profit corporations as the big bad wolf, but this proposal goes 
far beyond that. It would allow government to regulate the raising and 
spending of money not only by billionaires or corporations but by what 
it simply labels ``others.'' That means everyone everywhere. It means 
individuals as well as groups, rich as well as poor, for-profits, 
nonprofits. Under this proposal, government could control them all.
  It takes no imagination whatsoever to realize that virtually 
everything can influence elections. Voter registration drives, get-out-
the-vote efforts, nonpartisan voter information, discussion about 
issues, town meetings--all of these activities and many more influence 
elections.
  Once again, I urge everyone to read the proposal before us. It would 
give government the power to regulate anything done by anyone at any 
time to influence elections.
  The third troubling element of this proposal is that it would 
suppress the First Amendment freedom of speech for individual citizens 
but protect the First Amendment freedom of the press for Big Media. 
Supporters of this amendment want to manipulate and control how 
individual citizens influence elections but are perfectly happy with 
how Big Media influences elections. This proposal would allow 
government to prohibit nonprofit organizations from raising or spending 
a single dollar to influence elections but leaves multibillion-dollar 
media corporations free to influence elections as much as they choose. 
That set of priorities represents a twisted sense of political equality 
that I cannot believe most Americans share.
  Finally, this proposal would allow government to distinguish between 
what it calls natural persons and ``corporations or other artificial 
entities created by law.'' Unlike other provisions of the Bill of 
Rights, such as the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment does 
not use the word ``person;'' it simply protects the freedom of speech--
a freedom that obviously can be exercised not only individually but 
also collectively.
  Yesterday a Democratic Senator dismissed the notion that corporations 
can be treated as persons under the law because corporations never get 
married, raise kids, or care for sick relatives.
  Is he kidding? A corporation cannot care for sick relatives, but it 
certainly can speak, and that is what this debate is all about. As the 
Supreme Court observed more than a century ago, corporations are 
``merely associations of individuals.''
  Perhaps I need to remind my colleagues that the first section of the 
first title of the United States Code is the Dictionary Act. It defines 
the word ``person'' to include ``corporations, companies, associations, 
firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as 
individuals.''
  Many of what this proposal labels ``artificial entities''--such as 
nonprofit organizations, associations, or societies--exist to magnify 
the voices of individuals. The Supreme Court case that sparked this 
debate, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was brought not 
by a for-profit corporation but by a nonprofit organization. S.J. Res. 
19 would allow government not only to regulate but to prohibit the 
raising or spending of money by these nonprofits, associations, and 
societies to influence elections. They could be banned from speaking on 
behalf of what my Democratic colleagues like to refer to as ordinary, 
average Americans. Suppressing the speech of organizations that speak 
for individuals would leave millions of those Americans with no voice 
at all.

  We should eliminate rather than create barriers to participation in 
the political process. We should encourage rather than discourage 
activities by our fellow citizens to influence the election of their 
leaders. We should prohibit rather than empower government to control 
how Americans participate in the political process. We should, to 
return to Justice Brennan's words, strengthen rather than dismantle our 
national commitment to uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on 
public issues. Making S.J. Res. 19 part of the Constitution would 
instead make that debate inhibited, weak, and closed.
  As the Supreme Court has recognized, the First Amendment is premised 
on a mistrust of government power. Neither the nature of government 
power nor its impact on individual liberty has changed. S.J. Res. 19, 
therefore, proves three things. It proves that the government's 
temptation to control what Americans say and do in the political 
process is as strong as ever. It proves that the majority believes it 
can retain power only by suppressing the liberties of our fellow 
Americans. It proves that the profound national consensus Justice 
Brennan described may no longer exist.
  Another irony is that the majority in what we often call the world's 
greatest deliberative body is trying to stifle the free speech of 
citizens with whom they disagree. This is nothing more than election-
year misdirection, an attempt to distract attention from the majority's 
complete failure to address the real problems facing our Nation.
  We should heed the advice of our late colleague from Massachusetts, 
my friend Senator Ted Kennedy. We were often called ``the odd couple'' 
because we worked so well together but came from disparate or different 
political areas. In March 1997 this body was debating another proposed 
constitutional amendment to control political speech. That measure, I 
want my colleagues to know, was more narrowly drawn than the one before 
us today. It was limited to expenditures supporting or opposing 
candidates and did not exempt Big Media. Yet Senator Kennedy rose to 
oppose it and said:

       In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never 
     amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start. It 
     would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. 
     Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not 
     require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.

  That was said by Senator Kennedy, and he was right. The Senate voted 
38 to 61 against that proposal. And Senator Kennedy's words apply with 
even more force today, there is no question about it.
  The real purpose of S.J. Res. 19 is exactly what America's Founders 
ratified the First Amendment to prevent. Supporters of this radical 
proposal apparently believe that freedom itself is the problem. That 
view is contrary to the most fundamental principles of this Republic 
and incompatible with a free society. Freedom is not the problem; it is 
the solution.
  I am really amazed that my colleagues on the other side would attempt 
to pull this stunt at this time in our country's history, when almost 
anybody who looks at it knows it is done just for publicity and 
political reasons. At the same time, what an awful amendment it is. It 
makes one wonder if people in the Congress today are really as serious 
about our country as they were back at the beginning of this country. 
Those people didn't have nearly the knowledge from books of learning 
and capacities we have today,

[[Page S5400]]

but for some reason they were inspired. They were well educated. They 
were strong people. They knew what was right, they stood up for what 
was right, and they did it in very carefully selected words, which 
would be surely diminished by what the Democrats are trying to do here 
today.
  I sometimes wonder, is politics more important than the Constitution? 
They know they are not going to pass this resolution. We are not going 
to let them pass it. It is crazy. It is wrong. It is out of whack. It 
is against almost everything the Founding Fathers stood for. It is 
against Supreme Court precedent. It basically would limit the rights of 
far too many people.
  I know my colleagues are going to ultimately vote this down. This 
will never get 67 votes and never should. It never should have seen the 
light of day and never should have seen a minute on the floor of this 
august body. It diminishes this body, that this type of amendment is 
being brought to the floor of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.


                            Fair Shot Agenda

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, over the last several weeks I spent a 
lot of time traveling across my home State of Washington hearing from 
workers and families about the challenges they face in today's economy. 
While there is no question the economy has made a lot of progress, I 
spoke with far too many people who are working as hard as they can and 
still feel as though they are running in place. Despite their best 
efforts, they have not achieved the kind of economic security that 
allows them to buy a home or save for retirement or start the new 
business they have been thinking about. I think we can all agree more 
Americans should have those kinds of opportunities.
  So I am proud that this year Senate Democrats have focused on 
legislation that would go a long way toward giving our families and 
Americans a fair shot. We have made the case for giving millions of 
Americans across this country a raise, helping students get out from 
the crushing burden of student loan debt, ensuring that in the 21st 
century working women get equal pay, and so much more.
  In the coming days we are going to bring these issues to the 
forefront once again and make another push for our Republican 
colleagues to join us. Each one of these policies would do so much for 
our families and for economic growth, and that is especially true 
because each would help women in today's workforce. I have come to the 
floor to focus on that last point in particular and talk about why each 
of these bills would make a real difference for women across the 
country.
  You may remember that my Republican colleagues blocked these bills 
the last time the Democrats brought them to the floor. So I am going to 
encourage my Republican colleagues to say something besides no when it 
comes to higher wages for workers or college affordability or pay 
equity, because if they have a reason for opposing legislation that 
would help women and families get ahead, I think the American people 
deserve to hear it.
  The role of women and families in our economy has shifted 
dramatically in the last several decades. Today 60 percent of families 
rely on earnings from both parents--up from 37 percent in 1975. Women 
today make up nearly half of the workforce, and more than ever women 
are likely to be the primary breadwinner in their families. Women are 
making a difference across the economy in boardrooms and lecture halls 
and small businesses, but our Nation's policies have not caught up with 
the times. In fact, today they are holding women back.
  Across the country women still earn 77 cents on the dollar on average 
compared to men. That difference adds up. In Seattle last year women 
earned 73 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts, and 
that translated to a yearly gap for women of $16,346. Nationwide, over 
a typical woman's lifetime, pay discrimination amounts to $464,320 in 
lost wages. The gender wage gap makes dealing with other financial 
burdens such as student loans even more challenging.
  This past spring I invited a woman from Massachusetts named AnnMarie 
Duchon to our Budget Committee hearing to testify about her own 
personal experience with pay inequity. AnnMarie told us that over the 
years she missed out on more than $12,000 in wages compared to a male 
coworker who was doing the same job. She told us she and her husband 
both have student loan debt and those lost wages--$12,000--would have 
covered 10 months of payments. AnnMarie said thinking about that 
setback was ``heartbreaking.''
  AnnMarie said she was ultimately able to go back and convince her 
employers to give her equal pay, but unfortunately most women are not 
able to do that. Many don't even know they are earning unequal wages. 
That is a real loss, both for our families and for our economy as a 
whole. That is why we need the Paycheck Fairness Act to tackle pay 
discrimination head-on and help ensure that in this 21st century 
workers are compensated based on how they do their job, not on their 
gender.
  Another policy that needs an update is our Federal minimum wage. Two-
thirds of minimum wage workers are women. Many of them are the sole 
breadwinners and sole caregivers for their family, and I know if you 
ask them how $7.25 an hour translates to a grocery trip for a family of 
four or shopping for school supplies or just paying transportation to 
and from work, they will give you a straight answer: It doesn't. 
Democrats know it is time they got a raise. Republicans disagree. They 
said no earlier this year to a raise for 15 million women, and I think 
the American people deserve to hear why.
  Women aren't the only ones affected by these challenges, because when 
working women aren't getting equal pay, when they haven't gotten a 
raise in years, when they are struggling to make ends meet, that means 
their families are too--and our economy as a whole is weaker for it.
  Democrats have put forward ideas throughout this year that would help 
level the playing field. It has been, I must say, deeply disappointing 
that time after time our Republican colleagues have simply said no--no 
to tax and pay discrimination through the Paycheck Fairness Act, no to 
giving millions of workers across the country--including 15 million 
women--a raise, no to legislation that would relieve some of the 
crushing burden of student loan debt, and the list goes on.

  Republicans rejected so much as a debate on each of those bills just 
a few months ago, and that is a shame because we know these are issues 
women and families truly care about. They rightly expect us to be 
working together to come up with solutions. If Republicans are just 
going to reject our ideas, I think their constituents deserve to hear 
what else they have to offer.
  When I was in my home State of Washington last month I spoke with an 
entrepreneur named Leilani Finau. Leilani has worked very hard to get 
her own business off the ground. She told me for the last 12 years she 
has only been able to pay the interest on her student loans. So more 
than a decade later she still owes the same amount of principal.
  I also talked to a woman named Veronica Donoso. She is an 
administrative specialist and a single mom from my home State. Veronica 
told me about the financial burdens she is dealing with--not only 
student loans but childcare for her daughter. She said, ``I try not to 
let my daughter see my struggles, but I feel terrible knowing that she 
is suffering too.''
  I think women such as AnnMarie, Leilani, Veronica, and a lot of other 
women across the country deserve to hear more than just no from 
Republicans when it comes to legislation that could make a difference 
for them and their families.
  In the next few days Republicans will have an opportunity to take a 
different approach than they have so far this year. I am calling on the 
Senate Republican leader to take advantage of it. We should be able to 
debate these important issues. Democrats have put solutions on the 
table, a higher minimum wage, student debt relief, giving women more 
tools to fight pay discrimination, and more. If Republicans have more 
to say than no, it is time for them to do it.

[[Page S5401]]

  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Madam President. I would ask to speak for up 
to 10 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you. First, I thank the distinguished chair of 
the Budget Committee for her words and her work on focusing on middle-
class families and making sure the economy grows for everyone. I wish 
to echo and expand upon the very same topics our distinguished 
chairwoman has been talking about.
  First, I think it is important to note that we have seen an 
improvement in the economy. We are seeing a stock market that has 
doubled since President Obama took office. We have seen deficits going 
down. We are seeing projections of slowing increases as they relate to 
health care and Medicare costs. We are seeing more jobs being created.
  The challenge for us is making sure everyone has an opportunity in 
that economy. We see an economy that has turned, but yet we see way too 
many people who are not able to benefit from that economy and who don't 
have a fair shot to create the opportunities for themselves and their 
families.

  So there is more work to be done and that is what the ``fair shot'' 
agenda is all about. I thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership 
around this whole question of how to make sure the economy works for 
everyone, how to make sure we have a middle class in this country--and 
we will not have a middle class unless everybody has a fair shot to 
make it.
  We have put together five issues we have voted on that we will 
continue to bring up over and over again until they get passed--and 
certainly there are other issues as well but five that would make a 
tremendous difference to Americans in terms of creating opportunity.
  The first one is the minimum wage. If you work, you ought to be 
receiving more wages than if you were in poverty. Why not be over the 
poverty line if you are working 40 hours a week. We ought to value work 
in our economy. Raising the minimum wage is an important piece of that. 
It is the floor, the foundation that is high enough that your family is 
not in poverty if you are working 40 hours a week. We raised this issue 
and we voted on this issue of raising the minimum wage above the 
poverty line and it was blocked by our Republican colleagues in April.
  We then came back and looked at the fact that another part of the 
burden on middle-class families and those aspiring to get into the 
middle class is the cost of student loans. In fact, it is shocking to 
know we have more student loan debt than credit card debt in this 
country. We are seeing that people are able to refinance their homes to 
lower interest rates and benefit from lower interest rates for a 
variety of things, but they cannot refinance their student loans. 
People are locked in, whether it is current students, people recently 
out of college--we know there is a certain percentage of the trillion 
dollars in student loans that are paid by people who are retired, 
actually on Medicare and still paying off student loans. The law 
currently does not allow them to even just refinance to the low rates 
that one can get in other parts of the economy. Back in June we put 
forward a refinancing bill that would help 25 million Americans--
including 1 million in Michigan alone--reduce their student loan debt, 
put more money in their pocket so they can buy a house, they can raise 
a family. I know realtors in my State of Michigan and those who are 
involved in mortgage banking are now deeply concerned about this issue 
because the debt they have is disqualifying people from buying a home 
or being able to make other investments, starting a small business or 
other opportunities for refinancing.
  So this is a critically important issue. If someone is following the 
rules of working hard and doing what we all say to do, getting skills 
so they can compete and be part of the new economy and get a job, but 
folks find themselves in a situation where all they can do is create 
crushing debt in all of this and spend years and years and years, 
oftentimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, this 
is a concern. This is getting in the way of allowing people to be 
successful and have a middle class in this country. We have our student 
loan bill based on students, and it was unfortunately voted down by 
Republicans in June.
  Then we go on to an issue we didn't originally have on our agenda 
until the Supreme Court made what I believe was an outrageous decision 
that affects women in their personal health care decisions, basically 
saying that for a woman to get a certain kind of coverage for birth 
control or contraception, she would have to walk into her boss's office 
and sit down and explain her personal health care issues and get 
approval for birth control. I don't know any other part of the health 
care system that requires a boss to oversee a decision made by an 
employee. But this was something that was decided as being a legitimate 
option under a Supreme Court decision called the Hobby Lobby decision.
  So we put forth legislation to make it clear it is not your boss's 
business, that women ought to be able to receive coverage for 
preventive care for women just as men do for their health care 
decisions. We voted on a bill that would make sure women could make 
their own basic health decisions in privacy, and that was blocked in 
July by Republicans, indicating they did not believe women should have 
the opportunity to make their own health care decisions.
  Then a bill of mine with Senator Walsh called the Bring Jobs Home Act 
came before us. It is a very simple premise again. We are a global 
economy. We want to export our products but not our jobs, and we have 
tax policy right now that incentivizes those who want to take the jobs 
overseas. Some of this is craziness in the Tax Code, I believe.
  One of those very simple policies that has sent a message that it is 
OK to ship jobs overseas is the fact that if a company closes shop in 
places such as Michigan or Wisconsin or Ohio or anywhere in the 
country--we have seen too much of this in Michigan over the last 
decade--they can actually write off the cost of the move. The employer 
can say to the employees, you pack up the boxes, and by the way--
through the Tax Code--you will end up paying for the move. The Bring 
Jobs Home Act says, no, we are not paying, as American taxpayers, for 
your move if you are moving outside the country with those jobs. If you 
want to come back, great, you can not only write off those costs, we 
will give you an extra 20-percent tax credit for the cost on top of it.

  Very simply put, the Bring Jobs Home Act is for those who want to 
come home to America. We are all for it. We will support you and help 
you do that. If you want to leave America, you are on your own. That 
was blocked by the Republicans in July.
  As if blocking those four very important, commonsense bills was not 
outrageous enough, Republicans once again blocked a bill to guarantee 
women equal pay for equal work. I can't believe we are talking about 
this in 2014. Everybody says, wait a minute, we have equal pay for 
equal work. We have a law on the books that is not enforced at this 
point in time. We have court decisions that do not allow the actual 
equal pay for equal work statute to truly be enforced in this country, 
which is why we find ourselves in a situation where nationally women 
still only receive 77 cents on a dollar. In Michigan, it is 74 cents on 
a dollar.
  It is hard to believe that in this day and age--in 2014--42 of our 
Republican colleagues voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. I hope 
we are going to have another chance in the near future to vote on that 
and again give them an opportunity to support equal pay for equal work.
  When we look at Michigan, where women are working very hard every 
day, I find it stunning that they are making only 74 cents on every 
dollar. They are getting 26 cents less for every dollar that they work. 
When you go to the grocery store, you don't get a 26-percent reduction. 
They can't say: Hey, I am paid less. Here is my 26-percent discount. 
When they go to the gas station, they don't get a 26-percent discount. 
When they pay their mortgage, they don't get a 26-percent discount. 
Obviously it doesn't make sense and the numbers don't add up, but it is 
much more than just about numbers.
  I remember when Kerri Sleeman from Houghton, MI--up in the Upper

[[Page S5402]]

Peninsula--came here to testify in the Senate. She was a senior 
engineer supervising a group of engineers at the company. After the 
company closed and went bankrupt, she was reviewing the legal documents 
and found that she, as the engineering supervisor, had, in fact, been 
paid less than those whom she supervised.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for another minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Kerri Sleeman, as a supervisor, deserved to receive the 
kind of pay she should receive as a supervisor.
  One of the things I find outrageous is when we hear folks on the 
other side of the aisle say equal pay for equal work is nonsense; the 
bill is nonsense. It is a distraction. In Michigan we have heard people 
say: Women don't care about equal pay, they want flexibility. Well, 
flexibility doesn't pay for my groceries. The truth of the matter is 
women want to have the opportunity to receive equal pay.
  We are at a point in time where we ought to move forward quickly in 
passing each one of these issues. As we know, this is about the economy 
and growing the middle class in this country. We are not going to have 
a middle class unless everybody has a fair shot to participate and work 
hard and be successful, and we need to get about the business of making 
sure that happens.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I can't tell you how disappointed I am 
that the majority leader has continued to persist in blocking votes on 
more than 300 different pieces of bipartisan legislation that have 
passed the House of Representatives and that he refuses to bring up in 
the Senate. Rather than work together on a bipartisan basis to try to 
get the economy moving and get Americans back to work, we have these 
focus group, poll-tested show votes. The distinguished Senator from 
Michigan just admitted that equal pay for equal work is already the law 
of the land and then said we need to vote on it again. Well, it should 
be renamed ``The Trial Lawyer Relief Act'' because that is what it is. 
It is going to benefit the trial lawyers by encouraging litigation and 
will do nothing to make sure there is equal pay for equal work. We all 
agree that is and should be the law of the land, but encouraging 
legislation such as lawsuits against small businesses would do nothing 
to create jobs and grow the economy.
  There is a reason why the congressional approval rating is at 14 
percent. The distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain--in 
a display of what I guess could be called gallows humor--said we are 
down to paid staff and blood relatives. Those are the only ones who 
still approve of what Congress is doing, and it is easy to understand 
why.
  We just came back off of a recess where we had a chance to go back 
home and talk to our constituents. More importantly than talk to them, 
we had a chance to listen to them and hear what is on their minds. What 
are their concerns? What are their hopes? What are their dreams? What 
are they worried about? I guarantee that none of my constituents 
suggested we need to repeal the First Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution. That is the particular legislation that is on the floor 
today. That is the priority of the Democratic majority leader. It is a 
show vote to try to deny people an equal opportunity to participate in 
the political process--to shut them out if you disagree with them and 
silence them. Tell them to sit down, be quiet, we are in charge and in 
control.
  I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that it seems as though it is 
all politics all the time. Every perceived or real problem that our 
Democratic friends seem to identify--what is their solution? It is more 
government. The most feared words in the English language where I come 
from are ``I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help.''
  We had an experiment over the last 5\1/2\ years since President Obama 
was elected and the electorate gave the Democratic Party control of 
both the House and Senate. We have had a scientific experiment in the 
size and role of government and the results are in, and they are pretty 
pathetic. Unemployment is still unacceptably high. The labor 
participation rate, which is the percentage of people actually 
participating in the workforce, is at a 30-year low. People have given 
up looking for work, which is a great human tragedy.
  Then there is the President's approval rating. He is doing better 
than Congress, I will give him that, but it is down around 40 percent. 
Here is the troubling thing--and this is not a partisan comment. As an 
American, I worry when the Commander in Chief has the sort of poll 
numbers we are talking about. There was a poll reported by the 
Washington Post and ABC News on September 9. The poll showed that 
Americans say, by 52 percent to 42 percent, that President Obama has 
been more of a failure than a success as President of the United 
States. That is terrible. But it demonstrates his refusal to engage 
with Congress on a bipartisan basis to do the country's work. It also 
reflects the mistakes he has made when it comes to leadership around 
the world.
  President Obama wanted his second term to be about nation building 
here at home rather than conflicts and crises abroad. But, as we all 
know by now, the world is not cooperating. Even worse, the President is 
not leading. Instead, he has embraced a dangerously reactive foreign 
policy marked by empty rhetoric and wishful thinking, and the results 
are now plain to see.
  When we look at the Middle East, we see a massive terrorist enclave 
spanning western Iraq and eastern Syria. The border between Syria and 
Iraq is gone. It is the site of a new caliphate. They are the Islamic 
radicals who were deemed so bad that Al Qaeda didn't want to have 
anything to do with them--ISIS. They have created what they believe is 
an Islamic state or caliphate, where Shari'a law will rule and women 
will have virtually no rights and people will have no liberty or 
freedom. We have seen American journalists being decapitated on video. 
We see a brutal Syrian civil war in which about 200,000 civilians have 
been killed--200,000 human beings are dead as a result of a Syrian 
civil war--and millions more Syrians have been displaced internally 
within this country or else living in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, 
and Jordan.

  We see a failed state in Libya. We see a terrorist-sponsoring Iranian 
theocracy that continues to pursue a nuclear weapon, and we see a 
violent Iranian axis stretching from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut and 
Gaza.
  Meanwhile, let's not forget about Eastern Europe. We see an 
aggressive, autocratic gangster state conducting a cross-border 
invasion of democratic neighbors and taking sovereign territory by 
force in a manner not seen on the European continent since World War 
II.
  A few weeks ago the President announced that Western sanctions 
against Russia were working as intended. Yet, in late August a large 
number of Russian troops began launching major incursions into Eastern 
and Southern Ukraine in the hopes of seizing even more territory. They 
already have Crimea; that is yesterday's news. Now they are making 
further gains in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. One Ukrainian official 
called it a full-scale invasion. It doesn't sound to me as though the 
sanctions that were issued by the United States are working as intended 
as the President has said.
  Our existing sanctions are inadequate. They are not working as 
intended. Vladimir Putin is not deterred by economic sanctions. In 
fact, according to one Italian newspaper, Putin recently told the 
President of the European Commission that if Russia wanted to, it could 
take Kiev in 2 weeks. I am sure Mr. Putin is OK if it takes a little 
bit longer, just as long as he gets the territory he needs to try to 
restore the Russian empire to his former visions of glory.
  White House officials famously describe the President's foreign 
policy as ``don't do stupid stuff.'' That is one for the history 
textbooks. That is the sort of policy our students need to study in 
high school: Don't do stupid stuff. Come on.
  Time and time again in country after country on issue after issue, 
this administration has, by its inaction and its ambivalence, 
undermined America's partners, adversaries are emboldened, and it has 
weakened American credibility.

[[Page S5403]]

  Let's start with the Middle East. In Libya, President Obama launched 
a war against Moammar Qadhafi in Libya and then he did virtually 
nothing to help stabilize the country after Qadhafi's fall. That 
neglect ultimately led to the tragic death of four Americans in 
Benghazi in September 2012. It also led to the emergence of terrorist 
havens. What do they look for other than a power vacuum that they can 
fill where they can seek sanctuary and launch attacks in the region or 
against other adversaries? This has led to Libya's collapse as a 
functioning state. It is a failed state.
  It has also enabled jihadist groups in Mali and Africa until they 
were driven out by the French.
  Then there is Syria. Remember when the President said Bashir Assad 
needs to step down? He then did virtually nothing to help see that 
happen. He did nothing to arm the moderate rebel forces opposing Assad 
in the Syrian civil war. The irony is that U.S. officials had a plan to 
support those rebels, and they recommended it to the President in the 
summer of 2012 a plan proposed by then-Secretary of Defense Leon 
Panetta, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director 
David Petraeus, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Dempsey. They 
recommended a plan to deal with Assad and to facilitate the regime 
change President Obama called for. What did the President do? He 
rejected it, even though his stated policy in Syria since August 2011 
has been regime change.

  It has become commonplace to say that the United States has no good 
options in Syria. But President Obama's chronic passivity has helped 
the jihadists. I know that is not his intention, but it has helped the 
result. It has helped embolden the Iranians, and it has made the Syrian 
war even more dangerous for the United States and the United States' 
interests.
  Then there is Iraq. President Obama failed to secure a new status of 
forces or bilateral security agreement that would have protected 
American forces that served on a transitional basis in Iraq after the 
conclusion of the Iraq war. We kept troops in Japan and Germany after 
World War II, and indeed the Americans were the only glue capable of 
holding the country of Iraq together and avoiding the sort of sectarian 
civil war we have seen ensue. But his complete withdrawal of U.S. 
forces in 2011 was a huge gift to Iraq's Shiite militias, their Iranian 
patrons, and the Sunni terrorists of Al Qaeda who would later form the 
so-called Islamic State or ISIS or ISIL, as they are now called. I have 
to tell my colleagues, as I reflect on the American casualties in 
Ramadi, in Fallujah--our marines, our brave American soldiers, men and 
women, their loss of life or injuries incurred in liberating Iraq from 
Saddam Hussein and to see all of that forfeited by the President's 
unwillingness to secure a bilateral security agreement and leave a 
transitional, small footprint force there to help the Iraqis transition 
to self government and democracy--it breaks my heart. I don't know how 
we explain that to someone who lost a loved one in Ramadi or Fallujah 
or anywhere else in the Iraq war.
  According to the Wall Street Journal, at least 8 million Syrians and 
Iraqis live under full or partial Islamic State control. Eight million 
Syrians and Iraqis are living under the rule of medieval barbarians who 
not only decapitated two American captives but have accumulated a 
frightening amount of territory and wealth. They control a lot of the 
natural resources, the oil wells, in Iraq now because we have allowed 
them to capture it, and now that is the source of revenue for them to 
continue their terror. They have accumulated a frightening amount of 
territory and wealth by robbing, raping, extorting, and murdering 
innocent civilians.
  By allowing the Islamic State to take over such a large part of Iraq 
and Syrian territory, President Obama has neglected one of the key 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We remember the 9/11 
Commission. It was a bipartisan commission set up after the tragedy of 
9/11 to ask: How do we keep this from ever happening again?
  One of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is that the 
U.S. Government identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist 
sanctuaries; in other words, safe havens. Instead, the President has 
stood by and watched like a spectator while the Islamic State, over the 
course of many months, carved out its own safe haven, right in the 
heart of the Middle East.
  I am grateful to the President that he now has made a pledge to 
destroy ISIS. I believe this is not a threat that can be managed; I 
think it needs to be eliminated. So I congratulate the President for 
having evolved to this point where he understands the nature of the 
threat to American interests and to the American people, and I hope he 
is serious about doing that. But as one person recently noted, the 
Obama administration has persuaded just about every leadership cadre in 
the Middle East that the United States can be safely ignored when its 
principals make threats or promises. Remember the red line in Syria 
with chemical weapons. Well, the red line was crossed, and there were 
virtually no consequences associated with it. What is the lesson we 
learn? I guess I can get away with it and I am going to keep on 
coming--such as Vladimir Putin in Crimea and Ukraine.
  Speaking of threats and promises, President Obama has repeatedly 
threatened Russia with serious consequences over its invasion of 
Ukraine, and he has repeatedly promised to help the Ukrainian people 
uphold their sovereignty. Yet he continues to stubbornly refuse to 
provide the very arms to the Ukrainian patriots needed in order to 
deter and deflect and defeat Russian aggression. What are we giving 
them? Our good wishes? Sending them some food and medical supplies? 
That is fine as far as it goes. But without the actual weapons and the 
training they need in order to defeat Russian aggression and to raise 
the cost for Vladimir Putin, he is not going to stop. Yet the 
President's threats haven't been reinforced with the kind of action 
necessary to change Moscow's calculations, and his promises to the 
government of Kiev now look rather empty.
  The tragedy is it seems as though there is one world crisis after 
another, and we have long since forgotten about Libya, Syria, and the 
red lines and the chemical weapons there. They seem like a vague and 
distant memory because now we are focused on ISIS. But they are all 
part of the same problem.
  There is a very real danger in Ukraine that last week's cease-fire 
will only solidify Russia's recent territorial gains and legitimize its 
ongoing invasion and further embolden Vladimir Putin to seize even more 
Ukrainian territory or the territory of another Eastern European 
country when the time seems right. Amidst all of this upheaval, all of 
this violence, all of these challenges, all of these threats to U.S. 
interests and allies, the President seems disturbingly aloof. Here is 
what he said about the ongoing global turmoil at a recent fundraising 
event on August 29. This was reported in the press. He said:

       The world has always been messy. In part, we are just 
     noticing it now because of social media and our capacity to 
     see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going 
     through.

  But make no mistake about it. The Middle East has not always been 
consumed by the type of violence and chaos we are seeing today, and 
European countries have not always been facing cross-border invasions 
such as that posed by Russia today.
  The world needs strong American leadership. Ronald Reagan was right. 
We have a safer, more peaceful world when America is strong and does 
not create the safe havens for terrorists or by our timidity or our 
rhetoric that is not followed up on by actions that create the 
impression that people can get away with it. It just encourages the 
thugs, the dictators, and the terrorists.
  The President's refusal to accept any real responsibility for the 
consequences of his foreign policy is troubling enough, but what is 
even more troubling is he doesn't seem to fully grasp the magnitude of 
the threats and challenges that America is now dealing with. If he 
thinks this is all about social media and people being aware of things 
that were happening before but they weren't aware of before, I hope he 
will think again. Indeed, his overall record is looking more and more 
like a case study in the perils of weaknesses, naivete, and indecision. 
I can only hope that recent events will force him to change course.
  That could start by his coming to Congress with a strategy to 
eliminate

[[Page S5404]]

ISIS, to eliminate this threat. I believe there would be bipartisan 
support for a strategy the President would present that has a 
reasonable chance of success. But just to have open-ended air strikes 
and maybe just a strategy comprising hopes and dreams but not one with 
the likelihood of working is not good enough. But if he came to us and 
worked with Congress, I think it would serve multiple purposes.
  First, it would comply with the Constitution and the laws of the 
United States. That is important.
  Second, by engaging in bipartisan support in Congress, he would build 
support necessarily for this policy among the American people. I don't 
believe Americans should ever go to war without the support of the 
American people. We see what happens when that support fades and 
crumbles, and it is not good.
  The third reason he ought to come to Congress is I read in some of 
the news clips today he is going to come and ask us for $5 billion to 
fight ISIS. Well, the President--who is famous for saying, I am going 
to go it alone; I have a pen and a phone--can't go it alone when it 
comes to appropriating money. He needs Congress to appropriate that 
money. And Congress should not appropriate money without a strategy 
that has a reasonable likelihood of working or without an explanation 
of how this strategy is going to protect America and Americans' 
interests.
  So in his remarks on U.S. policy toward the Islamic State in Iraq and 
Syria tomorrow night when he makes this nationwide address, I urge the 
President to go beyond the rhetoric and offer a clear explanation of 
our military objectives and our strategic objectives. I urge him to 
explain how and why the Islamic State poses a dangerous threat to U.S. 
national security interests, which I believe it does and I believe he 
thinks it does. So I hope he will explain it to the American people so 
they can understand it. I urge him to explain how U.S. allies and 
partners can help support America's mission, because we can't and 
should not do it alone. Indeed, we do need that coalition, particularly 
of people in the region who have the most direct interest and stake in 
the outcome. We need them to come to the table and help too.
  Finally, I urge him to explain what his strategy is and how U.S. 
operations in Iraq and Syria fit within the broader role on radical 
Islamic terrorism. If the President gave such a speech--and I hope he 
does--I hope it is followed with true negotiations and deliberations 
and consultation with Congress. I know Minority Leader Pelosi and 
Majority Leader Reid and the Republican leader of the Senate, Senator 
McConnell, and Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy are 
visiting with the President perhaps as I speak. Maybe that is just the 
beginning of the kind of consultation that should take place. But I 
hope it is followed on by true collaboration and consultation with all 
Members of Congress so that we as Americans can come together and do 
what is in our national interests. But we can't do it without 
leadership, and we don't do it without a strategy to accomplish that 
goal.
  I think in the process the President could inject some much needed 
clarity and direction into a foreign policy that has become hopelessly 
muddled and aimless.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Illinois.


                             Foreign Policy

  Mr. DURBIN. I am going to give a brief statement about corporate 
inversion, but before I do I wish to respond to the Senator from Texas, 
who is my friend, and we have served together for many years. He has 
taken the floor for a period of time and spoken about some of the 
problems facing this Nation at home and abroad and has been largely 
been critical of the President in both categories. I didn't arrive 
early enough to hear his parade of horribles when it came to domestic 
policy; I just caught the end of it when he suggested there was 
something wrong with this President because America's labor force, its 
workforce, is shrinking. People are giving up looking for work. Well, 
that is a serious concern, and we ought to ask a question: Why are they 
giving up looking for work? It turns out it has, perhaps, something to 
do with the policy of our government, but it also has something to do 
with the life expectancy of Americans.
  I am a little older than the Presiding Officer, and I just barely 
missed what we call baby boomers. Baby boomers are those born after 
World War II when the returning soldiers and their wives and spouses 
sat down and said: We are going to build a family. And they did. A lot 
of kids were born in America. It was called a baby boom.
  Guess what. Baby boomers are facing retirement age. The workforce is 
shrinking because they are retiring. I would like to blame Barack Obama 
for that, but I think maybe that is a stretch. I don't think you can 
blame him for the baby boom. He wasn't even around after World War II, 
and he certainly can't be blamed because people decide to retire. 
Longevity kind of suggests when that might happen.
  But still in all, it is another one of the things that is ticked off: 
The shrinking labor pool is an indication of the failure of the Obama 
labor policy. No. It is an indication of the shrinking baby boomers, 
who are aging out and retiring--and God bless them; they are entitled 
to it. Folks ought to think twice about that particular criticism.
  I would like to address the foreign policy side, and I do wish to put 
in perspective what the Senator from Texas had to say, which was a long 
list--going all across the world--of problems this President has either 
failed to fix or has created.
  I listened carefully, and I always do, because critics of the 
President have every right to do that. That is part of democracy. But 
they also bear some responsibility to suggest what we should do as an 
alternative. Many of them said we have to be more manly, we have to 
stand up, and we have to show the world we are assertive. What does 
that mean? What are they saying?
  What the President is saying is that we have to be careful that we 
invest American lives, American treasure, and the American military in 
this world in places where we can make a difference and take care not 
to do, as they said inartfully, stupid stuff by sending our military 
into places where they cannot achieve their goal and reasonably come 
home in a short period of time. That is the President's position.
  I have not heard those on the other side be more specific when they 
say we have to be more assertive in America.
  The date was October 11, 2002, on the floor of the Senate--and I was 
here. It was 12 years ago, and it was the night we voted on giving 
President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The rollcall 
took place late at night, and I stuck around afterward. There were 
about three or four of us left on the floor. In the final rollcall 
there were 23 Senators who voted no on the invasion of Iraq. I was one 
of them. There was 1 Republican, and the rest were Democrats--1 
Independent and 21 Democrats, I should say. Twenty-three of us voted no 
on invading Iraq. Twenty-three of us questioned whether being assertive 
at that moment in history was the right thing to do. Remember, we were 
told about weapons of mass destruction and threats to the United 
States. Some of us were skeptical. The case had not been made. But we 
went forward.
  I would like to make a note as well that even though there was a 
difference of opinion about the policy of Iraq under President George 
W. Bush after the decision was made to go forward, many of us who voted 
no joined in with those who voted yes to say: Now that we have made the 
decision, we stand together as a nation. We are going to provide for 
President George W. Bush the resources for these men and women in 
uniform so they can accomplish their mission and come home safely.
  In other words, partisanship ended at the water's edge after we had 
made our decision. I still think that is the right course in foreign 
policy. Even though I voted against that war, I voted for the resources 
for the troop to execute it.
  I thought: What if it were your son, Senator? What if it were someone 
you loved? Do you want them to have everything they need to get them 
home safely?
  Of course.
  I wish that longstanding tradition in Congress would return. Wouldn't 
it be healthy and inspiring if after a heated debate over a foreign 
policy issue we said: Now we stand together. The decision has been 
made. We are going to stand as a nation.
  But instead what I hear from the other side when it comes to foreign 
policy issues: We are going to be critical

[[Page S5405]]

of whatever he does, whenever he does it, wherever he does it.
  I don't think that is constructive. I don't think it speaks well of 
the United States. The debate is important. The debate is part of us, 
part of who we are as a democracy. But after the debate, let's get on 
with working together.
  Do you remember that it wasn't that long ago when they discovered 
chemical weapons in Syria? The President said: This isn't just a threat 
to Syria; this is a threat to the Middle East and beyond. I am going to 
make a stand to dismantle those chemical weapons in Syria, and I ask 
Congress for the authority not to send in troops but, if necessary, a 
missile, a bomber, a fighter plane to support our efforts to eradicate 
this chemical weapons stockpile.
  Do you remember what happened? I do. What happened was we had a 
debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a vote--a 
bipartisan vote--which supported the President. Then we couldn't bring 
it to the floor because there was not adequate support from the other 
side of the aisle to stand by the President when it came to dismantling 
chemical weapons in Syria. He went forward, working then with Russian 
leader Vladimir Putin, and basically all of those weapons have been 
dismantled. When the President asked for the authority to dismantle 
those weapons, he couldn't get the support of the other party. That was 
the reality.
  Now we face a new challenge, and there are those who say that if we 
had just been bold and assertive--and I wonder if what they are saying 
is if we had just shown the strength we showed with the invasion of 
Iraq, this might not have occurred.
  Make no mistake. I am honored to chair the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. It is the biggest. Our budget is just under $600 billion 
a year. It is almost half of domestic discretionary spending. I have 
come to learn that our military is really the best in the world, 
starting with the men and women who serve but way beyond that--our 
technology, our intelligence. We have the very best, but we have 
learned the hard way that even the best military in the world can run 
into obstacles they did not anticipate.
  The first time I went to Walter Reed, I visited with a disabled Iraqi 
veteran. He was a sergeant from Ohio who had his right leg blown off 
below the knee.
  I said: What happened?
  He said: It was an IED.
  I said: What is that?
  He said: Well, it is an explosive device, roadside bomb. And we were 
in the best military equipment in the world, and this crude roadside 
bomb went off and blew off my leg.
  I thought to myself: I wonder, if the greatest military in the world 
with the greatest technology in the world can be brought to a stop by a 
crude roadside bomb, if we are properly evaluating war today, fighting 
terrorism today.
  What the President is trying to do is to find effective ways to stop 
this onset of terrorism in the Middle East, this new round of terrorism 
in the Middle East, this group called Islamic State.
  Why are we picking this group out of all the other terrorist groups--
and there are many of them. They are quantitatively, qualitatively 
different. They are the first terrorist group we know that has taken 
and held territory. Usually terrorist groups set off a bomb in the 
marketplace and they are gone. No, they take and hold territory. They 
capture banks--go inside and take all the resources out--so they have a 
treasury. Some people think they earn as much as $1 million a week off 
the oil wells they are controlling in Iraq. They use American equipment 
that has been left behind or stolen, and they engage in the worst level 
of savagery we have seen in modern times. The beheading of those two 
innocent Americans was heartbreaking--heartbreaking in one respect as I 
thought about their poor families and what they face, but it also 
enraged me to think that this group, the Islamic State, would do that 
to two innocent Americans, defying us and saying to us: This is just 
the beginning. It is a serious threat, and it is a threat to the 
stability in Iraq.
  Here we are 12 years after we invaded Iraq, after we have lost 4,476 
American lives in Iraq, after 30,000 of our troops have come home 
seriously injured, after we put $1 trillion more on our national debt 
to pay for the Iraqi struggle, and the country is virtually in chaos.
  The President is saying to the American people: I want to fight 
terrorism, I want to do it effectively, and I want to do it smartly. I 
want to do it in a way where we are not sending in troops who are there 
for long periods of time to just be targets for terrorists. Let's use 
our resources and our forces in a thoughtful way.
  I am awaiting a speech tomorrow night because I want to hear, as he 
lays this out, what he hopes to accomplish, how long we are going to be 
there, where we are going to be, and by what authority he is moving 
forward and using these military resources. Those are all legitimate 
questions, and it is right for the loyal opposition to raise questions 
about where he is going, why he is going, and what he wants to do. But 
for the time being, I think the American people want the President to 
present his case and then make their judgment as to what is fair to 
bring stability to this critical part of the world.


                          Corporate Inversion

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when a company moves its corporate 
headquarters overseas, but only on paper so it can avoid paying its 
fair share of U.S. taxes, these companies , are called corporate 
inverters. But let's call them what they really are: corporate 
deserters.
  These companies profit using roads and bridges built with American 
tax dollars to deliver goods to U.S. customers. They benefit from 
access to America's educated workforce . . . American investments in 
basic research . . . and American patent protections. And some have 
even made millions, if not billions, of dollars from taxpayer-funded 
government contracts and programs like Medicare.
  But when it comes time to pay their fair share of U.S. taxes--the 
very taxes that pay America's roads and bridges . . . our colleges and 
universities . . . basic research . . . patent protections . . . 
Medicare . . . and other competitive advantages--these companies do 
everything they can to dodge U.S. taxes. And they have gotten very good 
at shirking their fair share.
  Let me tell you how this corporate ``Three Card Monte'' works. First, 
a company in the U.S. purchases a company in Switzerland, Ireland or 
another country with a lower corporate tax rate. The U.S. company then 
files papers saying it is relocating overseas.
  In many cases, almost nothing changes. The CEO and other senior 
executives stay in the U.S., no new headquarters are opened overseas, 
and up to 80 percent of the shareholders are the same, but suddenly the 
company gets a huge tax break.
  But this is only the beginning of the story. Next, the new parent 
company--headquartered overseas--shifts the debts off its own books and 
onto the books of its U.S. subsidiary. Abracadabra: Another huge tax 
break, because the company can write off its debt and interests on that 
debt. This is called ``earnings stripping.''
  Now, here is the third card in the Three Card Monte: the hopscotch 
loophole. U.S. corporations currently have nearly $2 trillion in 
foreign earnings stashed overseas. As long as they keep that money 
parked overseas, they can defer paying taxes on it.
  But when a company ``inverts,'' the inverted company--the corporate 
deserter--can access the millions--sometimes billions--of dollars they 
I have parked overseas without paying US taxes on the money. So the 
``hopscotch loophole'' gives these corporations another massive tax 
break. The inverted company can use the money it had parked overseas to 
pay back the loans it used to finance the inversion . . . or to pay 
dividends to U.S. investors--and pay little to no taxes.
  Let me give you an example. Let's say a U.S. company wants a big tax 
break by inverting and purchasing an overseas company.
  It doesn't have enough cash in the U.S. to buy the overseas company 
and it doesn't want to use the money it has stashed overseas--because 
once the money comes home, it is subject to U.S. taxes. So what does 
the corporation do?
  First, it gets a short-term loan from a bank to fund the inversion. 
Once that transaction is complete, the company can use the money it has 
stashed overseas to pay off the short-term loan while dodging U.S. 
taxes on those overseas profits.

[[Page S5406]]

  The result of this corporate Three Card Monte? Corporate deserters 
are able to avoid billions in U.S. taxes--and other folks--families and 
companies that are working hard to make it in America--have to pay more 
taxes. To add insult to injury, some of these corporate deserters have 
made their millions and billions off of federal contracts paid for by 
U.S. taxpayers--the very taxpayers who will have to pay for their tax 
dodging.
  I'm not the only person who thinks this is wrong. Mark Cuban is a 
billionaire investor. Listen to this warning he tweeted to corporate 
deserters--quote: ``If I own stock in your company and you move 
offshore for tax reasons I'm selling your stock.''
  Why did he say that? Because when companies move off shore to save on 
taxes, American workers and companies that stay in America, that 
believe in America, have to make up the shortfall.
  That's not right, it's not fair, and we should take action to stop 
these corporations from dodging taxes and taking advantage of earning 
stripping and hopscotch loopholes.


              Reducing Corporate Tax Rates Not A Solution

  Many of our Republicans colleagues point to our broken tax code and 
say if we just reduce the corporate tax rate, it will stop companies 
from inverting.
  They are wrong, plain and simple. Absolutely, our tax code is broken 
and Congress should reform it. We should close loopholes that allow 
some to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We should fix the tax 
system so it works for hard-working Americans and for companies that 
want to help America succeed.
  But let's not try to fool people into thinking that if we just lower 
our corporate tax rate the deficit will disappear and all of our 
economic challenges will be solved. There is no realistic tax reform 
proposal that would reduce U.S. tax rates to compete with Ireland, 
which has a tax rate of 12.5 percent, or Switzerland, with its 17 
percent corporate tax rate.
  This is a race to the bottom the United States can't win and should 
not be lured into entering.
  Instead, we should immediately act to stop companies from inverting 
and then we should get to work on reforming our tax code. Before a 
doctor can perform heart surgery, she or he first has to stop the 
bleeding and that is what we need to do.
  There are at least a dozen companies that have announced they are 
inverting or are considering inversion. We should act now--either 
through Congressional or executive action--to close the tax loopholes 
that allow inverters--these corporate deserters--to avoid their fair 
share of taxes and push their tax obligations off onto the rest of us. 
Once we stop the bleeding, we can turn our attention to real tax reform 
where and a long-term, comprehensive solution.
  Senator Levin's bill would stop the bleeding by placing a 2-year 
moratorium on many inversions. Only inversions where no more than 50 
percent of the shareholders remain the same after the inversion would 
be allowed to go forward.
  We should also limit the damage caused by inversions by limiting the 
practice of ``earnings stripping''--that's the tax-lawyer's trick where 
you load all the debt onto the U.S. subsidiary and then write off the 
debt and the interest payments as a tax deduction.
  That is the purpose of a bill I am introducing tomorrow (Wednesday) 
with Senator Schumer. Our proposal would prevent certain corporations 
from taking excessive interest deductions and sticking U.S. taxpayers 
with the tab.
  Our bill would reduce the cap on interest deductions from 50 percent 
of adjusted taxable income to 25 percent. It would eliminate the 
ability of a company to carry forward any excluded interest.
  It would also require the IRS to pre-approve related-party 
transactions for up to 10 years after these companies move their 
headquarters overseas to ensure greater transparency.
  This bill is a targeted approach to a serious problem.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  There's more we need to do. I plan to work with my colleagues to 
develop a more comprehensive proposal to address both earnings 
stripping by foreign corporations and the hopscotch rule.
  Foreign corporations should not be allowed to load up the U.S. 
subsidiaries with debt and expect U.S. taxpayers to pay their debts. 
Inverted corporations should not be rewarded with additional tax breaks 
by dodging taxes on their profits earned overseas.
  These two proposals, along with Senator Levin's Stop Corporate 
Inversion Act, must be part of any comprehensive tax reform proposal.
  Before I close, let me mention one other issue.
  Some of the very companies that move their headquarters overseas in 
order to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes then have the 
nerve to come back to the U.S. with their hand out asking to profit 
from U.S. government contracts.
  Yes, that is right. Over the past 5 years, these corporate deserters 
have received $1 billion in federal contracts paid for by U.S. 
taxpayers, while avoiding U.S. taxes. This has to stop.
  That is why I introduced a bill with Senators Levin and Jack Reed to 
ban federal contracts for these corporate deserters. There is a 
companion bill in the House that is sponsored by Representatives 
DeLauro, Doggett and Sander Levin.
  This isn't a new idea. In 2008, Congress prohibited inverted 
corporations from obtaining any Federal contract under the annual 
appropriations bills, and for the most part this ban has worked.
  But these companies found a loophole. That is why they pay their tax 
attorneys and advisors the big bucks--to find the little loopholes 
worth billions of dollars. We need to close this loophole so that 
corporate deserters aren't able to profit from taxpayer-funded 
government contracts.
  About 50 companies have inverted in the last decade. Another dozen 
companies--including three headquartered in my State of Illinois--have 
announced that they are planning or considering inversion. If these 
companies want to renounce their corporate citizenship, that is their 
choice. I think It is a bad choice, but it is their choice.
  But they should not expect American workers and other American 
companies to pick up the tab for them while they take advantage of all 
that America offers. That is not a free market. That is freeloading.
  This isn't a partisan issue. Every inversion increases the burden on 
you and me to make up for the lost tax revenue.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle and the President to address this important issue.
  It was about 2 weeks ago that I was in central Illinois and I was 
heading to a forum for Senate candidates. It was put on by the farmers 
in downstate Illinois. I have a lot of friends there. We went off to a 
farm, and before we arrived I had an extra 45 minutes. I hadn't had 
lunch. So we were driving around Bloomington-Normal, IL, in McLean 
County.
  I said: Let's stop and get a sandwich somewhere.
  My driver said: Well, there is a Burger King.
  I said: No, thanks. There is a Steak 'n Shake--which happens to be a 
franchise we are very proud of in the Midwest and in Illinois.
  I consciously decided not to stop at Burger King. Why? Because in the 
past several weeks Burger King has consciously decided they are leaving 
the United States. This iconic hamburger chain--second largest in the 
world--has bought a doughnut chain in Canada, and now they want to move 
their headquarters to Canada from Miami, FL. Why would they move their 
corporate headquarters out of the United States of America, where they 
have most of their restaurants? To cut their taxes. It is called 
inversion.
  If you can pick up and on paper move your corporation to Switzerland, 
Ireland, the island of Jersey, Canada--you name it--there are ways that 
accountants and lawyers have figured out how to reduce your tax burden. 
But, of course, as companies decide to do that, they are also making 
conscious decisions to stop paying U.S. taxes or avoid paying U.S. 
taxes--at least some part of them.
  We have seen a lot of companies announce this. AbbVie, which is a 
pharmaceutical company in the northern

[[Page S5407]]

suburbs of Chicago, used to be Abbott Laboratories. AbbVie has decided 
they want to move overseas.
  I took a look at it and thought for a moment: Interesting. A 
pharmaceutical company wants to move overseas.
  How important was the United States to the success of a 
pharmaceutical company such as AbbVie, to the fact they developed drugs 
and products that were profitable? How important was this country to 
that company? I would say critically important. Companies don't usually 
come up with all the ideas for new drugs. They rely on the National 
Institutes of Health, the premier biomedical research agency in the 
world. The annual budget is in the range of $31 billion, and they do 
research which they then turn over free of charge to pharmaceutical 
companies to develop drugs to make money. The National Institutes of 
Health is supported by American taxpayers.
  If a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug they think has the 
potential to be a blockbuster and sell a lot, there is another step. 
They have to go to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the FDA 
tests it.
  If at the end of testing they come up with the conclusion that it is 
not only safe but effective for what it is being used for, they give it 
a seal of approval. It is the gold standard of safety of 
pharmaceuticals. The Food and Drug Administration is supported by the 
U.S. Government and American taxpayers. Then it is not over. There is 
at least one last stop. You go to the patent office to make sure you 
protect your intellectual property, this pharmaceutical formula. The 
U.S. patent office is supported by the government and U.S. taxpayers.

  So here is a pharmaceutical company using research, using testing, 
and using protections of patents from our government that says: 
Incidentally, we are leaving. We don't want to pay taxes to this 
government. We want to reduce our tax burden to this government.
  There is something wrong with this picture. Mr. President, 49 or 50 
corporations have done it, and more are threatening. Take Burger King. 
The sale of hamburgers does not involve a great deal of research, but 
the product that you are cooking at your store has been inspected for 
safety by the U.S. Federal Government. And the place where your store 
is located probably is on a highway or street supported by our 
government.
  But then there is one other element. The people who work in fast food 
in America are not usually paid a lot of money. Their income is 
supplemented by government programs such as food stamps. It turns out 
to the tune of about $7 billion a year. That is what taxpayers in 
America pay to subsidize the income of workers in fast food 
restaurants. So here is Burger King that is using the largess, 
protection, rule of law in the United States to do their business, 
counting on our government to step in and supplement the income of the 
person frying the hamburgers and serving it, and saying: Incidentally, 
we are leaving; we don't have any obligation to this country to pay 
taxes; we are going to Canada--on paper.
  There is something wrong with this picture. To me, if you are going 
to desert this country as a corporation, consumers first ought to be 
aware of it. That is why I drove past Burger King. I do not care to do 
business with a company that does not think it owes its fair share of 
taxes. Because if they do not pay their fair share of taxes, other good 
American companies will be forced to pay more and other individuals 
will too.
  So it is right for us to speak up now about this process of inversion 
and bringing it to an end. It is not just a matter of escaping taxes. 
There are accounting techniques. There are countless techniques which 
these inverted corporations can use to even reduce their corporate 
taxation more.
  Some people say the U.S. corporate income tax is too high. The 
nominal rate is 35 percent. The effective rate is closer to 25 percent, 
and the major corporations pay in the range of 10 to 15 percent. When 
you look at the countries they are going to--Ireland, I believe their 
corporate income tax rate is 12.5 percent; the Cayman Islands, zero. So 
we cannot play it to the lowest denominator, play to the bottom line, 
the bottom corporate income tax. It is a lose-lose situation.
  What we have to do is to make sure that the inversion comes with a 
price. I am joined with Senator Schumer. We will put in a bill later 
this week to talk about this whole question of inversion as it relates 
to the Tax Code. It is a technical bill Senator Schumer has largely 
written as a member of the Senate Finance Committee and asked me to 
join him on because of my interest on the subject. It limits the 
practice of ``earnings stripping''--a tax lawyer's trick where you load 
all the debt on to the U.S. subsidiary and then write off the debt and 
the interest payments as a tax deduction. The bill which I will 
introduce with Senator Schumer is designed to prevent corporations from 
taking excessive interest deductions and sticking U.S. taxpayers with 
the tab. There are other parts of that bill.
  I believe the Tax Code should be written in a positive fashion. It is 
not positive in our Tax Code to set the stage for corporations to move 
their jobs and headquarters overseas. In fact, we allow under our Tax 
Code for these corporations to deduct their moving expenses if they are 
going overseas. What are we thinking? Why would we create an incentive, 
a deduction, for taking jobs out of America? I think there is a better 
approach. When the time comes for tax reform--and I hope it is soon--I 
am going to propose that we have something called the patriot employer 
tax credit. Here is what it says. It is pretty simple. If your 
headquarters for your corporation are in the United States; if you have 
kept your jobs here in the United States; if at least 90 percent of 
your employees are paid at least $15 an hour; if you have good health 
insurance, according to the standards of the Affordable Care Act; if 
you will contribute at least 5 percent of your employees' earnings 
toward their retirement; and if you will give a veterans preference, we 
will give you a tax credit.
  We want to reward--we should reward--and incentivize companies that 
build their future in America, companies that believe in America, 
companies that pay a decent wage in benefits to the people who work for 
them.
  That is what should be in the Tax Code. Let's start incentivizing job 
building and job expansion here in the United States. Let's stop these 
deductions for moving jobs overseas. And let's put an end to this 
corporate inversion.
  These folks have to realize we are not going to stand still for them 
gaming the Tax Code to avoid their responsibility to the country which, 
by and large, created the success of most of their corporations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President:

       Attention all citizens. To assure the fairness of elections 
     by preventing disproportionate expression of the views of any 
     single powerful group, your Government has decided that the 
     following associations of persons shall be prohibited from 
     speaking or writing in support of any candidate. . . .

  This is a statement that I have taken directly from a dissenting 
opinion issued by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called 
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce--a 1989 ruling of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.
  The concern expressed in that dissenting opinion, the opening line of 
which I have just read, comes to mind when we review the legislation in 
front of this body right now, S.J. Res. 19--an attempt, a wholesale 
effort to repeal the First Amendment of the United States, to undo its 
most fundamental protections, protections that protect the right of 
every American to speak out on issues of public concern, to try to 
influence the outcome of elections, to try to dictate the course of our 
entire country.
  Now, fortunately, this precedent that Justice Scalia was expressing 
concerns with was overruled. It was overruled in a case called Citizens 
United, which has itself become the target of S.J. Res. 19. In other 
words, because the Constitution has now been properly interpreted to 
protect the right of the American people to join together and form 
voluntarily associations and to use those associations to try to 
influence the outcome of elections, my colleagues across the aisle have 
decided--rather than to follow the Constitution

[[Page S5408]]

to change it, rather than to follow its dictates to get rid of those 
portions that would interfere with the power of government--this is 
something we cannot tolerate, this is something we cannot ignore, this 
is something that we must do something about, and we have to do it 
today.
  As Justice Scalia explained in his dissent in the Austin case, this 
principle, this type of approach whereby we allow the government to 
limit the expressive capabilities of the American people, to limit the 
ability of the American people to form voluntarily associations and 
speak out on matters of public concern, is utterly contrary not only to 
our case law but to the text of the First Amendment, and it is 
inconsistent with the absolutely central proof underlying the First 
Amendment. The idea here is that government cannot be trusted to assure 
through censorship--and make no mistake, that is what this is about, 
censorship--the ``fairness of political debate.''
  So we are here ostensibly to debate the relative merits of S.J. Res. 
19, which would up end well over two centuries of understanding that 
there are certain things the government cannot do, that there are 
certain things that the government can never be trusted to, that the 
government cannot censor our speech, particularly our political speech. 
We are here to debate that, and yet among those who have introduced 
this legislation, among those who have sponsored this legislation, we 
have heard, if I am not mistaken, from only three today. We have heard 
only three speeches today.
  This is a profound and disturbing message to the American people. We 
are trying to upend the cornerstone of American republican democracy, 
and yet we have had two speeches in support of it. This is something 
that ought to alarm us terribly.
  I was pleased to hear moments ago from my distinguished colleague, 
the senior Senator from Illinois. I respect the senior Senator from 
Illinois. He and I have worked together on a lot of pieces of 
legislation. We have worked together most recently on the Smarter 
Sentencing Act, which I think is an important bipartisan attempt to 
reform our Federal criminal sentencing code, which is in serious need 
of being reformed.
  I also respect the senior Senator from Illinois for some statements 
he made a few years ago when another amendment had been proposed. I at 
least respect the approach that he took in urging caution before 
undertaking any effort to undo, to weaken, to undermine the Bill of 
Rights. Here is a statement that he made on June 26, 2006: ``The Bill 
of Rights has served this Nation since 1791, and with one swift blow of 
this ax, we are going to chop into the first amendment.'' He was 
concerned about that.

  He was concerned also when on the same day he made a similar comment, 
instructive here, I think, when he noted: ``It is a matter which we 
will likely debate the rest of this week''--the week in which he was 
speaking in 2006--meaning this is an urgent matter, it is a matter of 
great concern to the American people when we are talking about changing 
the First Amendment or any component of the Bill of Rights. He 
continued:

       The reason we are going to spend this much time on it is 
     because this one-page document represents a historic change 
     in America. If this amendment were to be ratified, it would 
     mark the first time in our nation's history that we would 
     amend the Bill of Rights [to the United States Constitution].

  On the same day he also said:

       It takes a great deal of audacity for anyone to step up and 
     suggest to change the Constitution. . . . I think we should 
     show a little humility around here when it comes to changing 
     the Constitution. So many of my colleagues are anxious to 
     take a roller to a Rembrandt.

  I could not agree more, especially when we are talking about not just 
freedom of speech but core political speech, which is the subject of 
S.J. Res. 19. Make no mistake, the fundamental purpose, the most 
important objective underlying the free speech clause and the free 
press clause was to protect the right of the people to engage in 
political speech. And make no mistake, the purpose of this is to 
enhance Congress's power to restrict political speech. In fact, its 
entire purpose focuses on efforts to spend money to influence 
elections--the core of political speech.
  Let's go back for a minute to the dissenting opinion issued by 
Justice Scalia in the Austin case I referenced a few minutes ago. He 
explained in that dissenting opinion that there are some things that we 
understandably do not want government to do. There are a lot of things 
we do in the Constitution that are all about outlining what the powers 
of government are. We explain what power Congress has, what power the 
President has. We explain further that powers not delegated to Congress 
are reserved to the States or the people.
  Then we also identify in the Bill of Rights that there are certain 
areas that are just out of bounds for government, areas where we do not 
want government to tread. This is one of those areas. As Justice Scalia 
explained:

       The premise of our Bill of Rights . . . is that there are 
     some things--even some seemingly desirable things--that 
     government cannot be trusted to do. The very first of these 
     is establishing the restrictions upon speech that will assure 
     ``fair'' political debate. The incumbent politician who says 
     he welcomes full and fair debate is no more to be believed 
     than the entrenched monopolist who says he welcomes full and 
     fair competition.

  This is what we face here. This is the risk we face here. We are 
assured by the proponents of this legislation--that is, both of them, 
both of those who have shown up so far to speak in support of this--
that this will still allow debate to occur. Yet how are we to believe 
this when what they are proposing is to expand Congress's power to 
limit that right to participate in an open, public debate, to undertake 
efforts to influence the outcome of elections and thus dictate the 
course of an entire Nation.
  Justice Scalia concluded with the thought that, as he put it:

       The premise of our system is that there is no such thing as 
     too much speech--that the people are not foolish, but 
     intelligent, and will separate the wheat from the chaff.

  He refutes the notion:

       . . . that a healthy democratic system can survive the 
     legislative power to prescribe how much political speech is 
     too much, who may speak, and who may not.

  When we try to weaken this understanding, we are playing with fire. 
Whenever Congress attempts to expand its power--for that matter, 
whenever any government attempts to expand its power--it does so 
inevitably at the expense of individual liberty.
  Here, where it tries to expand its influence over political debate, 
where it purports to have the ability to expand its power over core 
political speech, it does so--inevitably, inescapably, unavoidably--at 
the expense of the free expressive rights of a free people.
  This is one of the main core principles upon which our country was 
founded. We became a nation against a backdrop in which we found 
ourselves subject to a large, distant, powerful national government, 
one headed by a king and a parliament. Our former London-based national 
government recognized no boundaries around its authority. It had for 
centuries interfered with the right of the people to express their 
grievances. It had for centuries supported criminal actions against 
persons who engaged in what they described under their laws as 
seditious libel. In other words, if you criticized the government--if 
you criticized a government official--you could be, and presumably 
would be, criminally prosecuted for doing so. The truth was not a 
defense. In fact, truth made it even worse from the viewpoint of the 
government, because it was more difficult to refute. So people were 
routinely prosecuted for criticizing the government.
  We cannot--we must not--take even one step in the direction of 
expanding government's authority when it comes to speech that is at the 
core of our political system.
  Look, our political system isn't perfect. Our political system isn't 
something that everybody necessarily is inclined to enjoy. But our 
political system does keep us free, and it keeps us free only to the 
extent that individuals are allowed to speak their mind without fear of 
retribution from the government, only to the extent that individuals, 
rich and poor alike, are able to say what they want and join together 
and form voluntary associations for the purpose of influencing the 
outcome of elections so they can have some chance at standing up to a 
big government that affects so many of their

[[Page S5409]]

rights, that affects so much of how they are going to provide for the 
needs of their families and their communities.
  When the people are intimidated by a government that recognizes no 
boundaries around its authority, everyone suffers. This is an issue 
that is neither Republican nor Democratic, it is neither liberal nor 
conservative. It is simply American.
  It is time for the American people to stop simply expecting Congress 
to continue to expand its power at the expense of their individual 
liberty. It is time for the American people to stop simply expecting 
their rights have to bow to the interests of an all-powerful incumbency 
in Washington, DC. It is time for the American people to expect more. 
It is time for the American people to expect freedom.
  We expect freedom, and we will defend freedom when we defeat Senate 
Joint Resolution 19.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________