Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act of 2014

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I come to the floor to offer a compromise on the LNG export issue. I will put up my first chart. I think this is both a solution and a compromise to LNG exporting.

The reality is we need to be able to construct LNG export facilities. There has been debate in this body as to how that approval process should work. Some want to take the Department of Energy completely out of the process and just allow companies to build LNG facilities--let the market work--and that is actually an approach I advocate and I have joined with others on that type of legislation. That legislation has bipartisan support. I think we could get it to the floor and we would have more than the 60 votes it needs to pass. Others have advocated a more cautious approach, which is essentially continuing the current state of play wherein DOE can take years before they make a decision on these LNG export terminals. So what I offer today is the LNG Certainty Act, which I believe is a compromise between those two points of view. It would provide for an expedited process but would do it in a way where we keep the Department of Energy in the equation.

Why is it so important that we act now? This is a bill that is very much about jobs. Right now we are on a motion to go to a bill that purportedly would create jobs. I don't think that bill will create jobs; I think it will create more regulation and more costs for companies that are trying to create jobs. So instead why don't we bring up some of these energy bills that will not only create jobs but accomplish much more as well, such as economic growth--economic growth that will generate revenues to reduce the deficit and the debt without raising taxes or increasing regulatory burdens? Why not pass some of these energy bills that will provide better environmental stewardship? LNG production certainly would provide job growth, economic growth but also better environmental stewardship, and it will also help provide national security--national security for us and for our allies. That is a very big reason it is so important that we act now.

We have a President who is talking about what Vladimir Putin and Russia should do and what they shouldn't do. He is talking about it, but we need to go beyond talk to action. What is that action? We need to impose stronger sanctions on Russia. I think there is broad bipartisan support in this Senate to impose stronger sanctions on Russia, but for those sanctions to be truly effective, we need the European Union to join with us in imposing those sanctions. We can have a meaningful impact on what Putin and Russia do, but we have to act and we have to get the European Union to act with us.

So why aren't they acting with us? The reality is Vladimir Putin has them over a barrel--literally. European countries are dependent on Russia for their energy. So they are very reluctant to impose sanctions when they have to get their energy from Russia.

Here is a graph that shows how much all of these different European countries get in terms of their energy, their natural gas from Europe. We can see in some cases it is 100 percent, 60 percent, 50 percent. For some obviously it is less. But for many European countries, they are dependent on Russia for this natural gas.

Here is the pipeline network coming in from Russia. Here we see Russia and all of these pipelines coming into Europe through the Ukraine supplying natural gas. Obviously, these countries are very worried about imposing sanctions which, of course, would create difficulty for them from an economic perspective as well as Russia, but they are very concerned about energy supply. That is why we have to act and we have to act now to make sure they have another supply of energy so they can join with us in meaningful sanctions against Russia.

So how does the LNG Certainty Act work? Quite simply, it provides that the Department of Energy must make a decision on whether to approve an LNG export application within 45 days of that company completing its preliminary application to the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. So understand, right now companies have to apply to both the Department of Energy and to the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They have to apply to both in order to get approval to build an LNG facility.

When we talk to these companies we learn that the FERC has a fairly rational process that they know they can step through in an orderly fashion. It is pretty dependable, pretty certain. It takes a certain amount of time, covers all the bases, but they know they can get through it. The DOE--the Department of Energy--on the other hand, doesn't have any specific timeframes or criteria on how or whether they will give approval to these companies, so it creates uncertainty and it creates real delay.

As I said, some people want to take the Department of Energy out of the equation completely; others want to continue just as it is. That is why this act truly is a compromise in that we keep the Department of Energy in the mix, but we require that within 45 days after the preliminary application to the FERC is approved, which takes about 6 months, up to as much as 1 year--within 45 days after that preliminary application is filed with the FERC, the DOE then has 45 days to make a decision. So we still have whatever safeguards some people feel need to be in there, as far as the DOE. The DOE is still in there. They still have that safeguard, but we have a reasonably expedited process and a reasonably certain process for these companies that are applying to try to get approval.

Right now we have on the order of 13 different companies--1 has conditional approval but 13 different companies--

seeking approval to build LNG facilities. Many of these companies have been waiting for over 1 year--some 1 to 2 years--and they are not even through the Department of Energy process yet. So while we need to start moving natural gas to Europe, since Europe needs that source of supply so they can stand with us in sanctions against Russia, these applications continue to sit in limbo. How does that possibly make sense? Why aren't we acting? Why is it adequate or satisfactory for the President to just talk about what should be done instead of doing something? This is action we can and must take.

I will give my colleagues an example of a project showing what we are talking about. I am showing my colleagues 13 different projects that are in limbo.

Here is one right here where we take a specific example. This is the Golden Pass project. It is a project ExxonMobil wants to build. They are ready to invest $10 billion--$10 billion--today and save these taxes to build an export facility that will move liquefied natural gas from this country to Europe. Why would we want to sit and hold them up?

Here you see a timeline. They have been in this process already for more than 1 year. It looks to me as though they do not even figure they are halfway done yet, and there is no certainty from the Department of Energy when they will be done. Yet here is a $10 billion project that is sponsored by a company--ExxonMobil--that certainly has the ability to build it, that will take LNG, liquefied natural gas, to Europe.

What is the rationale for holding them up, for just making them wait? Aren't we moving to a so-called jobs bill? How many jobs do you think will be created in building a $10 billion facility? A lot of jobs.

This is just 1 example of the more than 13 I just showed that are sitting in limbo.

That is exactly why I have joined with Senator McCain, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Barrasso and we proposed the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. The whole focus of this act was to streamline oil and gas production, to build the gathering systems we need, move it to these LNG facilities, and give companies the approval and the authority to build those LNG facilities so they can move that gas to our allies.

All of these steps create jobs. They all create jobs. We create jobs in all of these steps: producing more gas, building the gathering systems, and building the LNG facilities. But instead of doing this--in this picture we have an oil well, which is flaring off gas, meaning burning it off. This picture is an example in my State of North Dakota where we are flaring off $1.5 million worth of gas a day. So instead of just burning up that gas, we would actually have a market for it, so we can capture it, move it to the LNG facilities, and export it to our allies, not only strengthening our national security and their national security but creating a market for our gas.

Right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of gas a year in this country, and we use 26 trillion. So gas is flared off instead of captured and sent to market.

If we want to talk about job creation, if we want to talk about economic growth, if we want to talk about environmental stewardship, if we want to talk about working with our allies to actually do something in response to Russian aggression, do we want to actually do something or just keep talking about it?

So while we are considering jobs bills, why don't we consider this jobs bill? Why don't we consider the LNG Certainty Act. The reason I have introduced this compromise bill is so we can do this: move natural gas from the United States, through facilities, to our allies to deter Russian aggression. It is that simple. That is what it is all about.

That is why, again, I joined with Senators McCain, Murkowski, and Barrasso to introduce the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. But if that is too heavy a lift--if that is too heavy a lift--then let's take up the LNG Certainty Act and just approve the ability to build these facilities. Let's at least take that first step.

There are other bills we can take up as well that are true job creators, real job creators, where we empower companies across this great Nation, large and small, to create jobs, to create more energy, to create better environmental stewardship, and to strengthen national security--energy bills that myself and others have introduced: the LNG Certainty Act which I am talking about right now, the North Atlantic Energy Security Act which I have referenced as well, Keystone--the Keystone XL Pipeline. Why aren't we building that right now to make sure, with Canada, we produce more oil than we consume so we can tell the Middle East we do not need any oil, we have it covered or the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which is a whole series of bills that have been passed in the House that I have introduced in the Senate that would cut the regulatory burden, increase the amount of energy we produce in this country both onshore and offshore or the Empower States Act, where we give States the ability to take a primary role in regulating hydraulic fracturing so we have the certainty to continue the investment that is producing an energy renaissance in this country.

All of these acts have been filed. All of these acts create jobs. Why are they being held up so we can consider a bill that increases regulation, increases taxes on companies in the country, and will have the impact of reducing jobs and reducing economic growth rather than accomplishing all of the things we are talking about--not just jobs, not just economic growth but national security and actually working with our allies to accomplish something instead of just talking about it, making Putin tow the line rather than just telling him he should.

With that, I know my colleagues are here to propose additional job- creating ideas as well, and at this time I yield for the outstanding Senator from the State of Georgia.

Yes, sir.

I thank the good Senator and I appreciate it very much.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for his compelling remarks about the importance of passing the Bring Jobs Home Act.

I am here to echo the need to pass this critical legislation, and I am certainly pleased we had such a strong vote to end debate on this legislation. I hope we can now come to some agreement and get the same kind of support for moving the bill forward. I am an original cosponsor of this commonsense bill.

As Senator Udall said, this legislation would end incentives for companies to send American jobs overseas, and it would instead encourage companies to move jobs back to the United States.

Believe it or not, when a company moves jobs offshore, it can write off those expenses on its taxes. That doesn't make sense. The Bring Jobs Home Act would stop forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for companies when they ship jobs overseas. In addition, to encourage companies to move production back to the United States, the bill provides a tax credit for the costs associated with bringing jobs back home.

Not only is this legislation the right thing to do, but it also comes at a critical time as our economy struggles to recover. In New Hampshire and across the country--as Senator Udall pointed out, in New Mexico with the closing of the mine and in that community--we are still feeling the effects of the great recession. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, and too many middle-class families are still struggling to make ends meet.

But sadly, even before the recession hit, the American middle class was finding it hard to pay their bills, to pay their mortgage, to find the good jobs that allowed them to have opportunities. A big reason for that was the loss of so many good-paying American jobs that supported the middle class. Too many of those jobs were shipped overseas. Over the last decade, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas, and those 2.4 million families supported by those jobs had to find other ways to support themselves, and often they were in jobs that didn't pay as well.

Well, it doesn't have to be this way. In fact, many companies are now looking to move jobs back to the United States. As production costs rise overseas, these companies want the advantages provided by our American workers--the most productive workers in the world--and the ease of doing business in the United States.

I have heard from several companies that have already moved jobs back to the United States, and there are many more that are hoping to bring jobs back home if we have the right policies in place.

Let me give an example. Last year I met with Doug Clark, who is the CEO of a footwear manufacturing company, New England Footwear. When we think footwear manufacturing or shoe factory jobs, we don't think the United States anymore because while there are still some very good companies that manufacture footwear here, most of those jobs were sent offshore a long time ago.

I know that story very well because my father was in shoe manufacturing. The whole time I was growing up, I watched him struggle with the loss of those shoe manufacturing jobs that were being sent overseas and imports coming in to take the place of shoes made here in America and the jobs that workers here in America held.

Today about 99 percent of shoes sold in the United States are made abroad. But New England Footwear executives, who have years of experience in the shoe industry, are looking to bring those jobs back home--back to New Hampshire. The company currently manufactures in China, but as costs rise there, Doug believes he can bring higher paying jobs to the United States thanks to innovative technology that reduces manufacturing costs.

New England Footwear isn't alone. A Boston Consulting Group survey from last September showed that more than half of large U.S.-based manufacturers are planning or considering right now bringing production lines back to the United States from China. That is up 17 percent from just 2 years ago--17 percent. That is a big increase, a lot of jobs. The Boston Consulting Group projected that production reshored from China and higher exports due to improved U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing could create 2.5 to 5 million American factory and related service jobs by 2020. So by 2020 we could replace more than the jobs we lost in the

last decade. That is the kind of behavior we should be encouraging. That is exactly what the bill before us does.

We know it will work because a 2012 MIT forum on supply chain management found that providing tax credits for bringing American jobs back to the United States would be one of the most effective ways to accelerate that process, along with other commonsense measures such as enacting tax reform, which we all agree we have to do, providing research and development incentives, ensuring a highly educated workforce, and improving American infrastructure. Again, these are all challenges which I think the majority of us in this body understand have to be done.

I am very glad the Senate moved to this bill because our priority in Washington must be creating jobs and restoring the American middle class. Over the past few decades too many Americans have seen their jobs disappear or their incomes fall. The Bring Jobs Home Act is an opportunity to support those families by creating good-paying jobs in the United States and by helping our economy regain its competitive edge.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with a number of my colleagues to ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2262, which is the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill; that the motion to commit be withdrawn; that amendments Nos. 3023 and 3025 be withdrawn; that the pending substitute amendment be agreed to; that there be no other amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that if the bill is passed, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 371, S. 2282, which is the passage of the Keystone Pipeline, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, but no later than Thursday, July 31, 2014; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.

What I am basically asking is that we get a vote on Shaheen-Portman and if that moves, that we then get a vote on the Keystone Pipeline-- something our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been talking about for months.

Before my colleague leaves I wish to thank Senator Heitkamp for her support, not just for Shaheen-Portman but for a resolution to getting a vote on our energy efficiency legislation that I have worked on for 3\1/2\ years with our colleague Senator Rob Portman from Ohio but also for the impasse that would break around the vote for the Keystone Pipeline as well. Pairing the two would allow us to see where we stand on both of these issues.

I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, coming to the floor because he and Senator Heitkamp have talked about the fact that we have to look at a variety of areas of energy if we are going to address our future energy needs in this country. There is new urgency to energy efficiency right now. A recent study just came out that shows the United States ranks 13th out of the world's largest 16 economies in energy efficiency. So that study analyzed the world's largest economies that cover more than 81 percent of the global gross domestic product and posts 71 percent of the global electricity. What it found is we are severely lagging behind other countries in our use of energy efficiency. This legislation, the Energy Efficiency and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as Shaheen-Portman, is a way for us to address the deficit we currently have in this country.

We have heard from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy that by 2030 this legislation would create 192,000 domestic jobs. That is nothing to sneeze at, at a time when our economy is still recovering from the recession. It would save consumers and businesses $16 billion a year--again, real savings in a way that is important to consumers and businesses. It would reduce carbon pollution at a time when we know pollution is affecting our environment and we are seeing a record number of disasters. It would be the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. Our legislation does this without any mandates, without raising the deficit. In fact, we see a very small savings of about $12 million in the legislation.

It addresses the building sector where we use about 40 percent of our energy. It addresses the industrial manufacturing sector that consumes more energy than any other sector of our domestic economy, and it addresses the Federal Government where we use more energy than any other entity in our economy; 93 percent of the energy is used by our military. Clearly, energy efficiency is something that would benefit all of us.

There are 10 bipartisan amendments that have been incorporated into this legislation. It is the product of 3\1/2\ years of work. It has been endorsed by hundreds--literally hundreds and hundreds of business groups, of businesses, organizations, everything from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, the International Union of Painters.

This is legislation that makes sense. We just heard Senator Cornyn on the floor saying he thought there was support to get this legislation done. I think we need to figure out how we can

come together. We don't have much time left before we go out in August to go back to our home States. This would be a great bipartisan effort to go out on at the end of July, to be able to go home and say to people across this country that we worked out a deal that passed this energy efficiency legislation, that we got a vote on the Keystone Pipeline--let the chips fall where they may--that we addressed one of the biggest challenges facing this country, which is energy, and what we are going to do about our energy future.

I certainly hope that in the remaining time between now and the beginning of August we can come together, find some sort of resolution to address this issue and get this legislation done. We know the House has said they are willing to take it up. They are interested in seeing some action on energy efficiency. Now is an opportune time to do that.

I am disappointed by today's objections, but as Senator Heitkamp said so well, we are not going to give up. We are going to continue to try and move this issue and do what is in the best interests of the people of this country.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on

Veterans' Affairs, I want to take a few minutes to update Members of the Senate as to where we are on some very important issues that impact veterans all over this country.

The first point I want to make is some good news. The committee had a hearing yesterday to hear testimony regarding the confirmation of Robert McDonald to be the new Secretary of the VA. I think I can speak for the whole committee in saying we were very impressed by what we heard from Mr. McDonald both in terms of his passion for the needs of veterans and also his administrative knowledge, his management skills, as the former head of one of the large corporations in America. I think he left us with a very strong impression. The result was that today, a few hours ago, by a unanimous vote, the Senate committee voted to confirm Robert McDonald as our new Secretary of the VA, and I hope very much his nomination will get to the floor as soon as possible. I think that is good news because the VA needs stable leadership. Sloan Gibson, who has been Acting Secretary, is doing an excellent job. He has already accomplished a lot. But it is important that we have a new permanent Secretary on board, and I hope the Members here see fit to confirm him as soon as we possibly can.

On an additional issue, I think as all Members of the Senate know, about a month or so ago we voted by a vote of 93 to 3, almost unanimously, to make sure the veterans of our country get quality health care in a timely manner, that we bring a new level of accountability to the VA, and I am very proud of the support that legislation, which was introduced by me and Senator John McCain, received. I thank again Senator McCain for his very strong efforts to make that happen and for his continued support of the veterans community.

Senator McCain made a statement the other day--I think it was yesterday--published in CQ, which I personally could not agree with more. He spoke in terms of the conference committee that we are in right now trying to merge the Senate bill and the House bill and come up with something that can pass in both bodies. He said and I quote: ``We've got to sit down and get this done, because we cannot go out for recess in August without having acted on this bill.''

I think he is exactly right.

Let me, picking up on that theme, relay to my colleagues what the VFW, which is having their annual convention in St. Louis, said:

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is

demanding that Congress immediately pass a compromise bill to

help fix the Department Of Veterans Affairs before they

adjourn for five weeks at the end of the month. ``Pass a bill

or don't come back from recess,'' said VFW National Commander

William A. Thien of Georgetown, IN. ``America's veterans are

tired of waiting--on secret waiting lists at the VA and on

their elected officials to do their jobs.''

I could not agree with the VFW more on that issue.

There was a bill a month ago that passed here. The CBO said that bill would cost $35 billion, and we voted for that for emergency funding because the Members here understood that taking care of veterans is a cost of war as much as spending money on tanks and guns and missiles-- $35 billion in emergency funding. The House passed its bill which was later assessed by the CBO at $44 billion. But here is the good news-- and without divulging the kinds of negotiations we are having with Chairman Miller in the House--and Chairman Miller is a serious man. I think he wants to get a bill passed. I don't want to go into all the details here, but I think it is fair to say the cost of that bill will be significantly less than what the CBO originally estimated.

A few minutes ago I and others received a letter from the major veterans organizations on an issue of important consequence. Again, without going into great detail about the nature of the negotiations which the House and Senate are having on the veterans bill, I think it is fair to say one of the stumbling blocks is that I agree and the House agrees it is imperative we pass funding to make sure that veterans who are in long waiting lines right now get the quality care they need now, and that means if the VA cannot accommodate them in a timely manner, they will go out to private doctors, community health centers, or whatever, and the VA will pay that bill. That is what we have to do because it is unacceptable that veterans remain on long waiting periods and not get health care. There is a general agreement on that. There is debate about how much that is going to cost over a 2- year period, but I think we can reach some resolution.

Here is where the difference of opinion lies--without divulging anything, and this has been in the newspapers--Sloan Gibson, the Acting Secretary, came before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee last week and he made it very clear that while we have to deal with the emergency of long waiting periods and get people the contracted care they need, simultaneously, we must make sure the VA has the doctors, the nurses, the medical personnel, the IT, and the space they need in order to deal with this crisis so that 2 years from now we are not back in the same position we are, and he came forward with a proposal that, in fact, costs $17.6 billion. I think we can lower that amount of money, because some of that request is not going to be spent this year or even next year.

But the issue here is we have to strengthen the VA, their capacity, so that veterans do not remain on long waiting periods and that we can get them the quality and timely care they need.

Now, what I wanted to mention was an hour or so ago I received and Chairman Miller, who is chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, got the letter, Richard Burr, who is the ranking member on the Senate committee, Mike Michaud, the ranking member at the House--we received a letter from a variety of veterans organizations, virtually every major veterans organization, and they are the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, and many other organizations.

I want to take a moment to read what they say, because this is terribly important. What they are saying in essence is yes, we need emergency funding to make sure that veterans tomorrow get the health care they need from the private sector or anyplace else, but we also need to strengthen the VA so that over the years they can provide the quality and timely care veterans are entitled to. I am going to read this letter because it is important that Members of the Senate and the House understand where the major veterans organizations are coming from.

Last week Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson appeared before the

Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to discuss the progress

made by the Department of Veterans Affairs over the past two

months to address the health care access crisis for thousands

of veterans. Secretary Gibson testified that after re-

examining VA's resource needs in light of the revelations

about secret waiting lists and hidden demand, VA required

supplemental resources totaling $17.6 billion for the

remainder of this fiscal year through the end of FY 2017.

As the leaders of organizations representing millions of

veterans, we agree with Secretary Gibson that there is a need

to provide VA with additional resources now to ensure that

veterans can access the health care they have earned either

from VA providers or through non-VA purchased care. We urge

Congress to expeditiously approve supplemental funding that

fully addresses the critical needs outlined by Secretary

Gibson either prior to, or at the same time as, any

compromise legislation that may be reported out of the House-

Senate Conference Committee. Whether it costs $17 billion or

$50 billion over the next three years, Congress has a sacred

obligation to provide VA with the funds it requires to meet

both immediate needs through non-VA care and future needs by

expanding VA's internal capacity.

And I continue. Again, this is a letter from almost every major veterans organization:

Last month, we wrote to you--

They wrote to the chairmen of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees--

we wrote to you to outline the principles and priorities

essential to addressing the access crisis, a copy of which is

attached. The first priority ``must be to ensure that all

veterans currently waiting for treatment must be provided

access to timely, convenient health care as quickly as

medically indicated.'' Second, when VA is unable to provide

that care directly, ``VA must be involved in the timely

coordination of and fully responsible for prompt payment for

all authorized non-VA care.'' Third, Congress must provide

supplemental funding for this year and additional

funding for next year to pay for the temporary expansion of

non-VA purchased care. Finally, whatever actions VA or

Congress takes to address the current access crisis must also

``protect, preserve and strengthen the VA health care system

so that it remains capable of providing a full continuum of

high-quality, timely health care to all enrolled veterans.''

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Essentially what the letter goes on to talk about is that many of these organizations have been looking at this issue for years, and in their independent budget have noted that the VA needs more space, because you have many hospitals where there are not enough examination rooms and that slows down the ability of doctors and nurses to treat patients, and we need more doctors and nurses. So for many of these organizations this is not new news. They have known it for years.

Here is where we are. The good news is that I think we can bring forth a bill which deals with emergency contracted-out care for veterans today on long waiting periods. I think we can deal with the issue that Senator McCain feels very strongly about and that is making sure that veterans who live 40 miles or more away from a VA facility will be able to go to the private physician of their choice, and I think we can also strengthen the VA in terms of doctors and nurses and information technology and space so that we don't keep running into this problem year after year. It is going to take the VA time in order to bring in the doctors and nurses and do the construction. I don't want to get into the details of the discussions we are having with the House, but I did want to make veterans, and, in fact, Members of Congress aware of where I believe we are at this moment.

With that, I will yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, in recent days I have come to the floor several times to talk about the humanitarian crisis on our southwestern border where a veritable flood of unaccompanied children, from Central America mainly, is appearing on our border and turning themselves in to the Border Patrol because they realize that ultimately they will be released to a relative in the United States with a notice to appear at a future court date. The vast majority of them will fail to appear for that court date and successfully end up staying in the United States, notwithstanding the fact that it does not comply with our law.

But in recent days a curious division has emerged from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on a fundamental issue that I want to highlight. On the one hand, more and more Democrats are calling on Congress to reform this 2008 law that inadvertently has become a magnet for illegal immigration by Central American minors. On the other hand, Senate Democratic leadership is refusing to consider any such reforms. They just want the cash. They wanted the money the President has asked for. So they are asking Congress to simply throw more money at the problem. The figure they have now settled on is $2.7 billion. The Associated Press has called this ``problematic.''

If you have a humanitarian crisis and you need more money to deal with it, we all understand that. But if you are unwilling to take the step to fix the basic problem that has created the crisis, that strikes me as problematic, as the Associated Press says.

What is President Obama's position? Well, I am afraid the President has shown a complete lack of leadership on something that he himself has called a humanitarian crisis. But there have been prominent members of his administration who have publicly expressed support for the type of reforms contained in the HUMANE Act, which is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation I have introduced with my colleague Henry Cuellar from Laredo, TX.

For example, you will see on this chart Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has said the administration wants to change the 2008 law at the center of the crisis so that U.S. authorities can ``treat unaccompanied kids from Central America the same way as it does from a contiguous country''--in other words, from Mexico.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, you can see on this next chart, has confirmed that the administration would support ``changing the 2008 law'' if it is necessary to resolve the crisis, as Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson says it is.

As tens of thousands of children continue to flood across our border, such changes are absolutely necessary. In fact, the cartels, the criminal organizations that are smuggling children into the United States, discovered this flaw and they have changed their business model to exploit it, because they are making money off of it.

The HUMANE Act, which we have offered as a solution is not the only solution. If other people have good ideas, we would love to hear them, but doing nothing is not an option.

The HUMANE Act would equalize the treatment of all unaccompanied minor children, regardless of where they come from. Treat them all the same. If it is good enough for children coming from Mexico unattended by parents, then it ought to be good enough for others.

All of our colleagues essentially voted for that proposition in 2008 with that law. This proposal we have would also expedite the removal process for those without a valid claim for legal status. In other words, there are claims for legal status in the United States that some of these children might qualify for. We do not touch any of those preexisting laws. In other words, if you are a victim of human trafficking, for example, you can qualify for something called a T visa while you cooperate with a law enforcement investigation.

If you have a credible fear of persecution in your home country based on certain other criteria, you could qualify for asylum or as a refugee. But finally, we would end the policy of catch and release by which these children or other immigrants are not detained pending a hearing in front of a judge. We know from experience, given the surge of Brazilians who came in 2005 and 2006, that additional detention and speedy hearings and reprocessing back to the home country are essential to deter people from coming in the first place.

The HUMANE ACT would bring order and clarity to a situation currently marked by chaos and confusion. You would think that Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, would want to bring some clarity and end the chaos and confusion. But so far we have not seen that sort of bipartisan desire to embrace a solution. So I am happy to note that a number of Democrats do agree with us about the need to reform the 2008 law and establish an expedited removal process.

For example, Senator McCaskill, the senior Senator from Missouri, has reportedly said: I think we should have the same law on the books for Central America as we have for Canada and Mexico.

That is precisely the point. She and I agree with each other 100 percent on that. That is what the HUMANE Act would do.

Meanwhile, the senior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper--the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, someone with a lot of knowledge about this, and somebody who I know has been in close consultation with Secretary Johnson--has argued that any supplemental funding should be paired with significant policy changes, saying, ``the two should go together.'' I agree with Senator Carper.

So if the administration agrees with prominent Senate Democrats, as Jeh Johnson has said they do, and as Josh Earnest has said they do, if the administration agrees with these prominent Senate Democrats about the urgency of passing something like the HUMANE Act, and if plenty of Senate Republicans agree as well, why are we not having a vote? What is the holdup?

Well, as usual, the majority leader seems to be more concerned about good politics than good policy. He, incredibly to most ears, certainly to mine, declared that the border was ``secure'' a couple of days ago. I was shocked to hear him say that. In the midst of a humanitarian crisis, he says the border is ``secure.'' With 414,000 detained coming across the border last year alone from 100 different countries, the majority leader says the border is ``secure.''

Here is what he said on Monday. He said: We need to get resources to our Border Patrol agents and others who are caring for these children.

This is at the same time he said the border is ``secure.'' I do not quite understand that tension between his positions. But this is what he said. He said: ``We need judges to hear those kids' cases and decide whether they need protection or need to be sent back home.'' So here is my confusion. The majority leader has said he understands what needs to happen. The press

secretary for the President says he understands what needs to happen. Secretary Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, says he knows what needs to happen. Prominent Democrats such as the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Delaware say they understand what needs to happen. Yet nothing is happening.

The HUMANE Act, which would do everything the majority leader mentioned, is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that would alleviate a national emergency and a humanitarian crisis. It has received support across the political and ideological spectrum.

I would add that some on the left and some on the right have criticized it. Some have not bothered to read it or understand it. But if you are being criticized on both sides of the extremes, then you must be doing something that is actually doable and may be at least 80 percent part of the solution.

So I would urge the majority leader, the majority whip, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to heed the message conveyed by Secretary Johnson. I would urge all of us, particularly at a time of humanitarian crisis, to forget the politics and let's solve the problem. We have an opportunity to address a genuine crisis. I urge them to remember, as Mr. Charles Lane of the Washington Post has written recently:

The rule of law is one of the benefits immigrants seek in

the United States. Step one in dealing with the border crisis

should be to reestablish it.

Those are wise words.

In contrast, if we simply write the administration a blank check for $2.7 billion without fixing the problem, we will find ourselves back here again and again as the numbers escalate from the 57,000 so far since October to the projected 90,000 the administration says could come across this year alone to the 145,000 who are projected to come next year.

I am, frankly, flabbergasted. Why can't we do this? Why can't we do it? Democrats agree with the need. Republicans agree there is a need. There is an escalating crisis on the border that is not going to go away with the change of the news cycle. We have the ability to deal with it so we should.

I actually agree with this statement by Senator Reid: We need to get the resources to our Border Patrol agents and others who are caring for these children. We need judges to hear these kids' cases and decide whether they need protection or need to be sent back home.

I agree with the majority leader when he said that. So let's do it.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I would propose to the Senator from New Hampshire an alternative. Before I do that, I would say the biggest problem we have is the inability of the Senate to process amendments in the normal order. I believe the Senator from New Hampshire is sympathetic to that.

If we could just have an opportunity to offer and vote on amendments, I have every confidence this piece of legislation would have been long passed. But somehow we are stuck. And it is not just the minority party that is limited on opportunities to offer ideas to help improve legislation and to get votes. It is even our friends who are in the majority. I can only imagine what it is like to feel like: I am in the majority, and I can't even get votes on my amendments or my legislation passed.

So I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments in order to S. 2262 be five amendments from the Republican side related to energy policy, each with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. I further ask that following the disposition of these five amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Utah because I got here late and I am intruding on his time, but he has been kind enough to patiently wait for me to make a few points. So I will try to be brief, but I think it is really important that we address this issue, which is a very serious problem happening in America.

We see increasing numbers of what we call corporate inversions-- American corporations establishing their headquarters overseas-- typically through the mechanism of purchasing a company overseas and establishing that as the headquarters.

First of all, I just hate to see any American company choosing to not be an American company. It is very offensive to me at a deep level, most especially if it were to be a Pennsylvania company--but any company. Secondly, whatever little shred of faith any Americans have in our tax system is further undermined by seeing this. And, most importantly over time, this dynamic that is happening, if unaddressed, I think poses a very serious risk that we are going to lose jobs, we are going to lose corporate headquarters and all of the very substantial and good-paying jobs that are always associated with an American corporate headquarters, from senior executives, to secretarial folks, to the janitorial staff, and everyone in between. There are a lot of jobs that go along with where people decide to establish their corporate headquarters, and I want it to be in America. That is my goal. That is my motivation.

So it is useful to start with posing the question: Why is this happening, that American companies that have subsidiaries overseas are deciding they had better be headquartered somewhere other than America?

I will tell you why it is happening. There is no mystery here. It is happening because we have a Tax Code that is driving them to do this. We have chosen to inflict on our workers and our businesses the highest marginalized tax rate in the industrial world, so we are systematically less competitive than any of our trading partners, the nations against which we compete.

In addition to having such a high marginal rate, we have chosen, quite foolishly, in my view, to adopt a system of taxation with respect to overseas subsidiaries that no one else in the world--virtually no one else in the world--adopts.

Let me drill down a little bit into this. Specifically, the difference between a high marginal rate and a low rate is pretty obvious. We have the highest. Other countries have much lower rates. Increasingly, they are reducing their rates. We used to be in the middle of the pack. Twenty years ago the American business tax rate was about the same as most of our trading partners and competitors. Today it is much higher. We stand pretty much alone with a very high rate. That is obvious. That is pretty straightforward.

The other piece, though, is how we deal with the tax--with the income of subsidiaries. That is very different. Here is what happens. Basically imagine that an American company has a subsidiary in Ireland. That subsidiary makes some profits. The profits are taxed by the Irish Government. They happen to use a 12\1/2\-percent tax rate, because they want to attract business. It is working, by the way, for them.

But be that as it may, the first layer of tax an American subsidiary operating in Ireland pays is the tax to the Irish Government, 12\1/2\ percent. Then here is what we do in America: We say, now if you want to bring that money home to America and invest it in America and build a new factory in Pennsylvania or in Delaware and hire lots of workers, if you want to bring the money home to do that, well, we have a punishment in store for you. We are going to look at our rate, which is among the very highest in the world at 35 percent. We will give you credit for the 12\1/2\-percent that you paid to the Irish Government. We will soak you for another 23 percent. That is the price we will charge you for investing in America. That is what we do. That is what our current tax system does.

Now what if this Irish company, this subsidiary operating in Ireland, what if instead it was owned by a company that is headquartered in Sweden or Switzerland or any other number of

European countries? Do you know what they do? What they do is say: Well, after you have paid your tax to the Irish Government, if you then want to bring it home to one of those countries, there is almost no additional charge. There is a very nominal toll, if you will, on bringing that money back to those countries.

What is the effect of this? The effect of this is that we put our multinational companies at a huge competitive disadvantage. It is an unsustainable competitive disadvantage. The other effect is that we end up trapping money overseas that would be invested in America but is not.

So what is the rational response of the corporate management and the board of directors of a business which has this Irish subsidiary that has made this money, it has paid its tax to the Irish Government? Unfortunately, the response typically is: Well, I cannot defend to my shareholders why I should bring that money home and get whacked another 23 percent. So instead, I would rather not do this, but I am forced to look at investing somewhere else in the world where I will not have to pay this tax. This is what I am being told--this is what is happening. The way to avoid all of this is to be headquartered somewhere other than America.

This is terrible. This is outrageous. We are doing this to ourselves. It is madness.

I have to say, I am very disappointed with how we are responding in this body. We know this is a problem. This is very real. It is growing. We are not taking it seriously. What we are going to vote on later this week, I think, or whenever the vote comes up, is not a serious attempt to solve this problem. It is a completely political show vote, the Walsh-Stabenow bill. It will do nothing to stop these ongoing inversions. It does nothing about the fundamental underlying cause that is driving these inversions. It does nothing to encourage the repatriation of all of this money.

By the way, it is attached to a vehicle that is unconstitutional. We cannot originate a tax bill in the Senate. The Constitution forbids that. So if you are even pretending to be serious about tax reform, you take up a House-passed vehicle so it is at least constitutionally possible. Our Democratic friends chose not to even bother with that formality, so blatant is the fact that this is not a serious discussion. That is a shame. We ought to be having a serious discussion about this.

There is a more serious alternative bill that some of our friends on the other side are advocates for. That is a bill that basically would make it harder for you to achieve the inversion a company is attempting to achieve. It would require the number of foreign shareholders be quite high at the end of the transaction in order to qualify for it. So it sounds on the surface like: Oh, that might work and make it harder to do this.

But the problem still goes to it does not deal with the underlying fundamental driver of this problem, which is a Tax Code that makes it uncompetitive to be American. So if the Levin bill, which is the one I am referring to, were to be adopted, which I certainly hope it would not be, it continues to make it untenable for shareholders of a business to justify being headquartered in America. We will continue to see increasing numbers of startups and spinoff and growth overseas where the governments choose not to punish their businesses the way we punish ours.

I think the answer is to deal with the underlying cause, not the reaction to that underlying cause. I do not want to see any more of these inversions.

We are going to do that by lowering the marginal corporate tax rates so there is not a huge advantage in being anywhere else other than America, and to adopt a territorial system, a system where once a company pays the tax it owes to the country in which it is located, we do not punish them for bringing that money home and investing it in America. That is the answer. That is the solution. This is no great mystery. The rest of the world has figured this out. They are ahead of us on this.

If we would get serious about this very real problem and we made these reforms, what would the net result be? Up to maybe over $1 trillion of money that is trapped overseas would be invested back in America. Can you imagine what that would do to our economic growth almost immediately--the surge in job creation, the surge in expansion of existing businesses.

You know, we have this tremendous renaissance in manufacturing that we are on the edge of, because we have such low-cost energy. It is an enormous advantage we have. We could release this pent-up demand and take advantage of this enormous opportunity if we had a Tax Code that made it rational.

I am standing here very frustrated, because I am watching us eke out this miserable sort of 1, maybe if we are lucky, 2-percent economic growth. Employment levels are way too low. Workforce participation is nowhere near where it should be. I know we could be booming. We could be growing at 4 percent. We could be creating many hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month. We could be bringing people back in the workforce. We could have the kind of strong economic expansion we have always had in the past after a severe recession.

But we are not getting there right now. It is partly because we have a Tax Code that is hampering us. It is driving up transactions that none of us want to see. So I hope after we get through the political exercise we are going to go through this week, we will get serious about solving the underlying problem: lowering the marginal rate so we do not stand out as the worst place in the world to establish a business, and moving to a territorial-based system so that we stop punishing businesses that want to invest in America. That is my hope. I hope we will get to this soon, because, unfortunately, we are seeing the unfortunate consequences of this bad policy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission Report.

As the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--a committee on which I proudly serve with the Presiding Officer--I can tell my colleagues that this report has been and continues to be incredibly important to the work we do in the committee that Dr. Coburn and I are privileged to lead in this Congress.

Nearly 13 years ago, as we will recall, our Nation suffered the most devastating attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. Almost every American alive will remember where they were on the day the Twin Towers collapsed, when the Pentagon was hit, and when they saw the wreckage in the fields of Shanksville, PA.

We asked ourselves at that time, Why would anybody want to do this? How did this happen? What could have been done to prevent this tragedy?

In the months after this horrific attack, Congress and the President endeavored to answer these questions. Together they established an entity we call the 9/11 Commission.

Led by former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean--our neighbor across the Delaware River--a Republican, and by former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat--one of my mentors in the House of Representatives--the Commission was charged with preparing a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding these horrific attacks and recommending ways to make our Nation more secure.

This proved to be no small task. The Commission interviewed more than 1,200 people in 10 countries, including every single relevant senior national security official from not one but two administrations, and reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents. Despite the political tensions and partisan climate that engulfed our Nation at the time, the Commission put aside their own political differences and issued their final report 10 years ago today.

The 592-page report contained a full accounting of what happened before and after the attacks and included no less than 41 recommendations on how we could prevent another tragedy such as the one visited upon us on September 11. The report went on to sell more than 1 million copies and it was at the top of the national best seller list-- numerous national best seller lists. Imagine that, a report--a Federal report--a best seller. It was a remarkable achievement, not only because of the depth and breadth of the Commissioners' findings but because all 10 Commissioners--5 Democrats and 5 Republicans--came to agreement on every single word of this report. Around here some days we can't agree if it is Wednesday, much less agree on every single word of a 592-page report.

In the months and years following the report's release, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together with the Bush administration to enact not one but two major laws to implement the report's recommendations. These laws were championed in part by our good friends Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Susan Collins of Maine, both of whom served as chair and as ranking member of the committee I now chair.

Among other things, these two historic bills created a new Director of National Intelligence to coordinate and oversee all information sharing and intelligence activities. These laws implemented a passenger prescreening system that has helped to ensure that terrorists aren't able to fly on aircraft, while also establishing a fully staffed Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

When we think about all of these accomplishments and more, I think it is safe to say that the 9/11 Commission report has proven to be one of the most important and influential efforts of its kind in recent history. We as a nation owe a real debt of gratitude to the Commissioners for their determined and clear-eyed approach to improving the security of our Nation.

We might ask ourselves: How did they do this? The Commission's leadership--Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton--wrote in their own words on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks about why the Commission was so special and so effective. Here is what they had to say:

First, because of the great damage and trauma the 9/11

attacks produced, the American public demanded action and had

high expectations for measures and reforms that would improve

the nation's security.

Importantly, the statutory mandate for the Commission was

limited, precise, and clear--the Commission was authorized to

investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the

attacks and to make recommendations to keep our country safe;

The Commission had an extraordinary non-partisan staff--

They truly did have an excellent staff--

the members of which possessed deep expertise and conducted

their work with thoroughness and professionalism; the

Commissioners--

Many of them I am privileged to know--

had deep experience in government and political credibility

with different constituencies;

The final report was unanimous and bipartisan; families of

the victims of 9/11 provided solid and sophisticated support

throughout the life of the Commission and in the years since;

and following the Commission, the Commissioners and staff

continued to work closely with Congress and the executive

branch to implement and monitor reform.

That is what they had to say.

In other words, they had the will to act. They had the authority and the responsibility to act. They had the support of great staff and of the Americans most directly affected by the tragedy; that is, the families who were affected. They had extraordinary leadership from Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, both of whom put aside partisan differences and built a trusting relationship for the betterment of our Nation.

Once, after having a hearing in Dirkson 342, where our committee meets now and where they were testifying before us, the Chair and Vice

Chair, Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, and I asked them: In a day and age when it is hard for us to agree on much of anything around here, how were you able to agree, the two of you and your Commission, on the entire almost 600 pages of this report?

I will never forget what they both said.

They said: Well, we didn't really know each other, but we were thrust into this and asked to serve in this capacity, and we got to know each other.

They said: We got to know each other very well, and out of all the time we spent together grew a trust that was almost without bounds and a very strong friendship--a real bond.

Sometimes we think about why we are so dysfunctional here. That is, in my judgment, a very big part of what is missing--a lack of trust and understanding of one another and having those kinds of personal friendships that go across all kinds of boundaries.

After 10 years, I still marvel at the trust developed between the Commissioners, and especially the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Perhaps most importantly, no other large-scale, 9/11-type attack on U.S. soil has occurred over these past 13 years. The improvements made to our intelligence, our law enforcement, and our security agencies as a result of the 9/11 Commission's work have undoubtedly contributed to that good fortune.

The response to the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013--just last year--was a shining example of how the investments we have made as a nation in training and equipment for our first responders have made us more capable, more resilient, and more secure than ever. But that attack itself showed us we cannot grow complacent. We must maintain our resolve and our commitment to the security of our Nation.

The Boston bombing, new threats to aviation, foreign fighters in Syria coming home--these are all stark reminders that we continue to face persistent and evolving terrorist threats.

Of course, one of the biggest threats our country faces is in cyberspace. That is why Dr. Coburn, our staffs, members of our committee, and I worked so hard to move three bipartisan cyber bills out of the committee this year and they now await action by the full Senate in this Chamber. These are just a few of the challenges our Nation continues to face.

We know there is still work to be done to fully implement the Commission's recommendations. So today, as we commemorate the release of this report, I think we would be wise to revisit and attempt to recapture the spirit of unity that made this bipartisan achievement possible by the 9/11 Commission.

As we seek to confront and to overcome the challenges before us on this day, we would be wise to consider again the example set by Governor Kean, Congressman Lee Hamilton, and the other eight Commissioners, and we should be inspired by their example.

The people we are privileged to represent across the Nation are pleading with us to set aside what separates us--pleading with us-- remembering what binds us together and do the hard work we need to do to keep our homeland secure in an evermore turbulent world.

Let me close by thanking once again the 9/11 Commissioners not only for their important work that they did all those years ago but for the enduring example they set for us a decade ago. Let's be inspired by them. Our country and its people are counting on us on so many different fronts. Let's not let them down.

I note the absence of a quorum. Thanks so much.

Mr. President, I rise to address the legislation we are debating, the Bring Jobs Home Act, but before I do so, I wish to note how much I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Vermont in fighting for quality care and quality programs for our U.S. veterans. This is incredibly important. Our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are coming home from Iraq and now from Afghanistan. They have stood for us and we need to stand for them. Bernie Sanders is leading that effort, and I appreciate him for doing so.

I wish to address the legislation we are debating, the Bring Jobs Home Act. Earlier today the Senate voted on whether to debate this legislation to help bring manufacturing jobs back to America--to onshore these jobs. I was very heartened to see a 93-to-7 overwhelming bipartisan majority say: Yes, let's turn to this bill and work on increasing manufacturing jobs in America. This is a much better result than we had just 2 years ago when some of my colleagues combined to thwart the ability to close debate on the motion to proceed and we were unable to get on to this bill.

We are in an economy where jobs have been returning, but quality living-wage jobs remain elusive. Indeed, 60 percent of the jobs we lost in 2008 and 2009 were living-wage jobs, and of the jobs we are getting back, only 40 percent of those are living-wage jobs. The difference between those two numbers means that millions of families who had a strong foundation just a few years ago, while they may have employment today, do not have a strong foundation because they are chasing part- time jobs, minimum-wage jobs, near-minimum-wage jobs, and jobs with low to no benefits, and that is not a foundation on which a family can thrive.

This bill is important. The Bring Jobs Home Act does two simple things: It closes tax loopholes that ask the American people-- currently--to subsidize the costs for corporations to ship jobs overseas; second, it creates a new tax incentive to encourage companies to bring jobs home with a tax credit that covers 20 percent of the costs of relocating those jobs back to the United States.

I am an original cosponsor of this legislation because this is an item of huge importance to my home State of Oregon. Manufacturing is a tremendous driver of Oregon's economy. In fact, if we look across the Nation and we look at what share of the State economy is driven by manufacturing, Oregon is often first or second. Manufacturing matters a great deal. When manufacturing thrives, the Oregon economy is going to do well, and when it dies, the Oregon economy is not going to do well.

If we look at this from yet another perspective, we can see that States have been losing manufacturing jobs over the last 10-plus years in sizeable numbers. In the period of about 2001 to 2011, that 10-year period, we lost approximately 5 million manufacturing jobs. To put it differently, we lost 50,000 factories. Well, what would we do today to have those 5 million living-wage, family-wage, good-paying jobs? One is we should pass this bill and to quit subsidizing the export of our jobs overseas.

These tax breaks, which were put through by powerful special interests for the benefit of a few multinationals, have done enormous damage to the United States of America and to our families, and this is our chance to reverse that.

One study--the Economic Policy Institute study of 2012--looked at the number of jobs that were created in this dynamic between additional sales overseas versus additional imports. Those additional imports, of course, reflected jobs lost. In their estimate, Oregon gained about 9,100 jobs from additional exports and we lost about 59,000 jobs. That differential of 50,000 jobs has an enormous impact on the State of Oregon. We can put it this way: It is about 2 to 3 percent of the number of jobs in our State economy, so it is an issue which really hits home.

I know Oregon is not alone. For every single State--West and East, urban and rural, and, yes, Democrat and Republican--this has been the story in which jobs lost have exceeded jobs gained. That is why I strongly hope this body of folks--representing the West and East and North and South and urban and rural, the blue and red--can come together to get this job done for the American people.

Think about it this way for a moment. Under our current Tax Code, we are asking working families who are paying income taxes to subsidize the exportation of their own jobs. That makes no sense. If you went out on the street in Eugene or Pendleton or Medford--cities across my State--and asked people what they think about that, you would probably hear a common theme. One person might say: That is absurd. Another person might say: That goes against our own economic self-interest. A third person might simply say: That is wrong and it hurts families. All of them would be right. Let's right this wrong, this inflicted wound on living-wage jobs and on our families.

Over the last few years we have started to see a bit of improvement in that manufacturing jobs have started to grow. But we need to nurture that trend. We need to encourage that direction. I know that for the Oregon families who are at the heart of the manufacturing economy, whether or not their jobs stay here in the United States of America means everything. It will affect the quality of life they will have as adults, and it also affects the quality they will bring to their jobs as parents and raising their children to seize opportunities of the future.

Let's continue to work together to keep jobs here in Oregon and here in America. Let's take on this issue of offshoring that has deeply affected millions of Americans. This is a problem that is within our power to fix, and we are now on the bill that starts us down the path of fixing it. Let's not get stalled. Let's make sure we have the majority to close debate, to get to a final vote.

If anyone has anything to say and you don't feel you have had time to say it, come and say it tonight, say it tomorrow, say it tomorrow evening, but get down here and make your notions known so that you don't have to say that you need more time when it comes time to shut down debate and actually vote on this bill.

Paralysis has been the practice that has so hurt this Chamber's ability to address major issues affecting America, and that is not right.

I encourage my colleagues, whatever you have to say, come down here and say it. Don't once again obstruct the ability of this Chamber to take on a major issue affecting families across this land.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and opportunity to speak on this bill. I know the Presiding Officer has been championing a whole collection of bills designed to nurture manufacturing. That collection of bills could do great work and would be a logical additional step as we take on these provisions to stop offshoring and increase onshoring.

We should turn to some of the other bills the Senator from Delaware has put together. One of the bills he has put together is a bill I sponsored. It is called the Build Act. I have gone on a manufacturing tour in my State of Oregon and visited a large number of manufacturers, and the common issue I hear from those who are managing the factory floor or from the CEOs is this: We need more folks coming out of high schools and community colleges who have both the aptitude for using tools and the desire to use tools.

It used to be, when I was growing up--this simply came because we had a habit of building things in our garages. Our garages were full of tools in a working-class community. My garage is still full of tools, but I can tell you that my children are not likely to find themselves out in the garage making things because that is not the culture today. If they are going to learn the joy of making things, they are going to have to have the opportunity of shop classes. It has a fancy name now-- ``career technical education.'' I think ``shop classes'' gives a better visual impression--metal shop and woodshop and bringing items home where you can say, hey, I made this dustpan or this carving or this mask.

I have been to some shop classes in Oregon where the students are not making the simple things that I made. They are making some of the most incredibly gorgeous furniture you have ever seen, with sophisticated skills in using tools. We need more of those shop classes to help feed and nurture the manufacturing economy. It is a win-win for our children, it is a win-win for our economy, and it is a win-win in terms of creating living-wage jobs that are a strong foundation for families to thrive.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Georgia on his remarks. As usual, they are eloquent and elucidate the issue beautifully. I am glad I had a chance to hear them.

I come to the floor to speak about an effort to expand regulations that will have a damaging effect on thousands of Americans. For those who are concerned this administration is trying to take away our guns, this regulation could actually do that. If this regulation is approved, when you decide to sell a gun, to sell a guitar or anything else that contains African elephant ivory, the government would actually take them away, even if you inherited the item or bought the item at a time when the sale of ivory was not illegal.

In February the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a plan to prohibit the interstate commerce of African elephant ivory. This was part of President Obama's National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trade. The plan is intended to stop the poaching of African elephants and to help preserve that species. But the impact will be something very different.

The impact of this plan will be to change a policy that has been in place since 1990, which prevents the importation of ivory for commercial purposes, with the exception of antiques. But it did not restrict interstate or intrastate commerce of legal ivory.

Now, let me be clear. I support stopping poachers. I support the preservation of these magnificent, regal animals, the elephant. I strongly support stopping the trade of illegal ivory. But what I do not support is treating Tennessee musicians, Tennessee antique shops, and Tennessee firearms sellers like illegal ivory smugglers for selling legal ivory products, many of which are decades old, if not over 100 years old.

Banning the buying and selling of products with ivory found in legally produced guitars, legally produced pianos, legally produced firearms, could prohibit musicians from buying or selling instruments that contain ivory, prevent firearms and family heirlooms containing ivory from being sold, and pose a significant threat to antique businesses.

Even though the ban has not yet gone into effect, the confusion and uncertainty created by the Fish and Wildlife Service's action to ban the interstate commerce of ivory and any item that contains ivory are already having a significant impact on businesses and families alike. Let me give you the example of John Case, who owns and operates a small antique family business with four employees in Knoxville, TN, near my home. He says he could see his business devastated by this proposed regulation. This is what John Case says:

The impact of President Obama's Executive Order expanding

the buying and selling of antique ivory and other endangered

species has been significant on our auction and appraisal

business. If one looks at the number of antique objects we

have sold and are selling at auction just for 2014, the total

exceeds $156,000. This amount is more than 11 percent of our

revenues for 2013 and does not include the number of antique

objects we turned away from selling because of these new

regulations and the loss of appraisals of those objects.

John Case continues:

This would easily total an additional $25,000 in revenues.

This total loss in revenues of $181,000 equates to one full

time salaried employee in addition to hours for part time

employees.

Here is one more example of a new regulation, which on a small business will equate to the loss of a job of one full-time salaried employee, in addition to hours for part-time employees. We wonder why the economic recovery has been worse than the great recession? You cannot be pro-jobs if you are antibusiness and if you keep dumping this big wet blanket of regulations on every effort an entrepreneur has to create a new job. Americans who create jobs--one told me the other day in Tennessee: I'm sorry to say that I'm beginning to look at a new employee as a liability instead of an asset. He said: I hate that. I want the employee to be an asset. But when I look at the employee, I think about what new costs does that employee bring to my business because of government regulations, because of ObamaCare, because of this or that. Now, in John Case's case, it is about legal ivory.

Mr. Case goes on to say:

Further, the loss of revenues for our business is

significant, as it encompasses a wide range of antique

objects, including 18th and 19th century American portraits

on ivory, music boxes and furniture with ivory inlay, silver

tea services with ivory insulators, weapons with ivory grips

and inlay. If these new regulations go into full effect, I

anticipate the reduction of staff and intern programs.

That is fewer jobs.

The impact of these new regulations has a significant

impact on our customers as well.

According to Mr. Case:

I just fielded calls this past week of two local consignors

who had holdings of antique

ivory with values exceeding $200,000. For one of those

consignors, his antique ivory was by far the most available

personal property he owned. It had been inherited from his

grandfather. For many of my consignors such as these

gentlemen, they will see a complete devaluing of one of their

greatest personal assets.

Mr. Case is not alone. The music industry--and we have a lot of that in Tennessee, in Nashville and in Memphis and East Tennessee as well-- is concerned. The National Association of Music Manufacturers, whose mission is to promote the pleasures and benefits of making music, says, of the proposed regulation:

[The] Problem with the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan is

many post-1914 instruments containing ivory are still in use.

Many famous artists perform with vintage guitars, violin bows

or pianos which contain small amounts of ivory. It is worth

noting that the music products industry had generally stopped

using ivory by the mid-1970s. A ban on the interstate sale of

items containing ivory would prohibit musicians from buying

or selling instruments. Replacing ivory with other materials

could adversely affect the total quality of those

instruments.

Instruments are not bought because they contain ivory but because of their playing characteristics. The proposed ban has already resulted in anecdotal reports of Fish and Wildlife Service agents investigating piano transportation companies to see if any instruments are containing ivory--even though these companies do not own the instruments.

Here is another example from the National Rifle Association about the proposed ban of legal ivory:

The effects of the ivory ban would be disastrous for

American firearms owners and sportsmen, as well as anyone

else who currently owns ivory. This means that shotguns that

have an ivory bead or inlay, handguns with ivory grips, or

even cleaning tools containing ivory, would be illegal to

sell.

My office has heard from businesses and individuals from all different sectors of our economy. The examples go on and on about this misguided policy. Let me repeat. I support stopping poachers. I support preserving these magnificent, regal animals, the elephant. I strongly support stopping the trade of illegal ivory. What I do not support is treating Tennessee musicians, antique owners, and gun owners like illegal ivory smugglers if they sell products that contain legal ivory.

I call on the Fish and Wildlife Service to abandon their current efforts and take a more commonsense approach, an approach that will preserve elephants, while not turning law-abiding citizens and businesses into criminals. In the absence of a more commonsense approach, I have introduced legislation, S. 2587, the Lawful Ivory Protection Act of 2014, to stop this misguided policy from going forward. My bill simply stops the Fish and Wildlife Service from continuing down this unwise path.

It keeps in place the same regulation that prohibited the illegal ivory trade regulation before February 25, which is the date the Fish and Wildlife Service began rolling out new regulations to ban the interstate commerce of ivory and any item that contains ivory. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this issue, and cosponsor my bill, S. 2587, the Lawful Ivory Protection Act of 2014, to stop the administration from taking away our legal guns, from taking away our legal guitars, and from taking away our legal items which contain legal ivory if we try to sell them.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown.) The clerk will call the roll.