Bring Jobs Home Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I join my colleague from Washington who was just on the floor to take a moment to recognize the heroic efforts that are underway in the State of Washington, battling wildfires with individuals who are trying to protect their homes and property. Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Robert Koczewski, a retired State trooper and veteran who suffered a heart attack and died while trying to save his own home.

I thank the local, State, and Federal agencies that are working together to meet the logistical needs of extinguishing these multiple fires and for the efforts they have already made to help save lives and minimize damage in what is the largest wildfire in our State's history.

I thank all of the community organizing individuals who have done so much work in their individual communities to support the efforts of the firefighters and to work with everybody in the community to make sure every aspect of security and safety is there for the families who have lost their homes.

I thank the individuals who have been working to provide shelter and to help their neighbors no matter what it takes.

There is a huge spirit alive in the Okanogan people who are working very hard to make sure they are also contributing. They have a great deal of self-reliance, spirit, and they want to make sure that, as FEMA and others are moving in, they are also responsible in helping with fighting the fires and to work to make sure as many people as possible in the community can be saved from this devastation.

We are hearing many moving stories of Washingtonians donating their time, volunteering goods, things everybody in the community needs.

So I thank the people of Washington and particularly in the central part of the State for everything they are doing to help battle this fire.

Export-Import Bank

Madam President, I also come to the floor to talk about the Export- Import Bank and the fact that we still need to work out a deal on the Senate floor so we can move this legislation. Time is running out. We only have a few days before the August recess and literally only a few legislative days when we return to make sure we reauthorize this important credit agency that helps manufacturers export their products.

When you grow U.S. manufacturing, you grow U.S. jobs. What we want to do is make sure our manufacturers have a fair shot at getting their products sold overseas. So it makes no sense to me that the fate of an organization that is such an important tool to businesses and comes at no cost to the taxpayers cannot get reauthorized. In fact, I am sure there are colleagues in the House of Representatives who would, if they had a chance, just outright kill the credit agency altogether.

Last week 31 Governors signed a letter that basically called for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. That brings the total number of Governors to 37. I am proud my Governor, Jay Inslee, along with Governor Robert Bentley from Alabama, led an effort to say to the Congress: This is important to do. They see the result in their States as it relates to jobs, and they want to make sure we get this reauthorized.

There are Governors from all over the political spectrum--liberal Democrats, to moderate Democrats, to moderate Republicans, and even tea party Republicans--so there are Governors out there from Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, to Governor Paul LePage of Maine, who want to get this important tool reauthorized. Even though they are from many different spectrums, they see that this creates jobs in their State.

I would like to point out that nine of those signatures come from Republican Governors, plus five Republican Governors sent their own letter. So that is 14 Republican Governors who joined a chorus of voices in the legislative body to make sure we are doing what is right for the economy and renew this charter for the important Export-Import Bank.

I wish to point out from the letter that it basically says that without the financing, U.S. firms would have lost sales to overseas competitors.

So this is what the Governors are trying to tell us. They are stewards in their States of jobs and the economy, and they are very concerned about the Export-Import Bank. So we want to make sure we continue to listen to those Governors and get their help in making sure their Members of Congress from their individual States support this legislation.

They also are talking to thousands of small business owners who are saying that failing to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank would lead to fewer exports and a loss of jobs in all 50 States. They are out there trying to make sure they are drumming up support in the congressional delegations of their States. That is because trade is a critically important aspect to our economy.

I just talked to one of my colleagues today who was telling me how much their State was recovering, but in the areas where they were doing the most exports, their State was really growing--that particular part.

In 2013, U.S. exports reached $2.3 trillion in goods and services. So exports across the Nation that are attributable to the Ex-Im Bank support about $37 billion worth of U.S. exports and about 205,000 related jobs. So you can see that the Export-Import Bank is a vital tool to creating jobs in our U.S. economy, and it does all of this returning $1 billion to the Federal Treasury. To me, it is a win-win for taxpayers and it is a good aspect for jobs. As I said, it is 205,000 export-related jobs and $37 billion in exports. That supports over 2,000 small businesses throughout our country. That is actually the direct impact of businesses that are exporting with the help of the Export-Import Bank. I say that because there are so many more people who are involved in the supply chain, and we talked about that last week.

I would like to address one issue today that I hear about from a lot of colleagues: Well, isn't this just something the private sector can do?

I guarantee you, if the private sector could just do it and would do it, we would be very happy. I am here to debunk that myth. In fact, in the words of the private sector, it is all about them needing the help of the bank to actually make deals work. Anyone who thinks they know what they are talking about, I want to make sure they understand.

First and foremost, in the bank's charter, it prohibits them from competing with private financing and requires that all financing have a reasonable chance of repayment. So literally in the bank's charter it says they are not there to compete with these banks. Yet I hear so many times my colleagues on the other side trying to say: Oh, well, this is just something that we, the government, should not be involved in.

I just pointed out that we actually make money off of it. So that part is really good for us because it helps us pay down the Federal deficit. And I just mentioned how banks want to partnership with this credit agency because it helps them, but it is actually in their charter that it prohibits them from doing so. Specifically, the charter says, in section 2, that the bank should ``supplement and encourage, and not compete with, private capital''--``not compete with, private capital.'' So there it is in their own charter, exactly how they are supposed to operate. So this is not a bank that is somehow competing with banks across America. They are partnering with financial institutions that see risks in overseas markets that they think are undeveloped and do not have the banking and financing institutions in their organization to help get these things done, and so they want to partner with the Export-Import Bank.

It is helping businesses all across our country. In fact, 98 percent of the Export-Import Bank's transactions were involved with banks throughout 2013. So it is not taking business away from them; it is actually helping businesses throughout our country.

The Export-Import Bank is a leading indicator for U.S. companies in how to get business done in these developing markets, and it is often in the national and local banking interest to have a partner such as this because they see deals and opportunities that come through their local communities.

I know there are banks--the Presiding Officer's major banks in parts of the Midwest, KeyBank--and others have talked to me about how important it is because they have homegrown businesses that come to them, and they see the opportunity but they also see the risk, and having this credit agency be a partner with that local bank helps them secure the deal.

As we look at this chart, it basically shows that 98 percent of the Ex-Im Bank transactions are involving commercial banks. So, again, there is this notion that somehow this bank is competing with the private sector when, in fact, it is basically prohibited in their charter, and 98 percent of the deals are actually done with an individual bank, which shows that this is really a tool for our commercial banking.

So these are banks everywhere, from the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank in Anchorage, to the Wallis State Bank in Texas, as well as national banks such as Wells Fargo and others. So they find it a very viable tool and something that is important to do.

According to a recent statement by the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade and the Financial Services Roundtable, the Export- Import Bank of the United States plays a critical role ``in international trade and US job creation by providing export financing products that help fill gaps in trade financing otherwise not provided by the private sector.''

So we are hearing from these individual banks that are saying this and basically articulating that this is a tool. In fact, one CEO, John Stumpf from Wells Fargo, recently talked about his work with a company called Air Tractor. Air Tractor is a Texas company that manufactures agricultural aircraft, with 50 percent of its business being overseas. He said how important it was that the Export-Import--I am going to quote him: Air Tractor would not be where they are today without the Export-Import Bank and there are certain things that would not have been done without them.

I want to go back to the fact that the banking industry really does believe the Export-Import Bank is a necessary tool. ``The Ex-Im Bank remains a vital partner for the lending community,'' according to the bankers association.

I think this shows there are people who are just not educated on the structure of the bank, how it works, how important it is to be an important tool for us. I want to make sure we understand why the private sector cannot do these loans.

If people understand how the bank works, some still want to come back and say: Well, they still should be doing it themselves.

I want to go to one chart that basically shows some of the challenges bankers face when they are dealing with this. They face bank balance sheet limitations; that is, the ability to hold all of those deals on their books over the period of the loan. They have the added risk of exporting to foreign markets, which can be challenging at best. And they have the lack of the financial sector presence in those emerging markets.

So as to all of those things, if you are, as I just mentioned, one of these banks--from the Wallis State Bank in Texas to the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank--you can see that they want to help this business in their State export or like this company I mentioned--Air Tractor in Texas that manufactures aircraft for agricultural purposes. You can see they want to help them. But, again, is the Wallis State Bank going to be able to go out and assess all these international marketplaces and assess whether that end customer is going to be able to continue to pay on the life of this purchase? No. This bank is not figuring out how to do that. So basically they are just turning this business down. Yet we have a U.S. manufacturer that has figured out a great product, figured out how to make it, figured out how to get customers overseas, figured out how to compete with international competitors, and we have people here strangling the one tool they need--the credit agency that helps the local bank in their community finance the deal.

So I just want to say I hope we resolve this issue with the Export- Import Bank. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come to terms with the amendments that are necessary to move this bill to the Senate floor. I know last time we had a similar debate and a lot of discussion, but in the end there were about 79 votes for the Export- Import Bank.

I guess I would ask all of my colleagues now to think about our economy and how much U.S. manufacturers need to sell in overseas markets. We are having an unbelievable growth in the middle class around the globe. It is going to double in the next 15 years. That is 2.7 billion more middle-class

consumers who could buy U.S. products and U.S. services, but they will not if we hamstring the export-import credit agencies that help support banks in the financing of U.S. manufacturers' goods sold overseas.

I hope my colleagues will help us get this bill to the floor, get it reauthorized, and not for a short term, not for 3 months, not for more mischief to be had, but to give predictability and certainty to people who are actually growing jobs in the United States of America, our manufacturers.

Unanimous Consent Agreement Executive Calendar

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation votes on Mendez, Rogoff, and Andrews occur following the vote to confirm the Disbrow nomination, and with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Virginia.

Export-Import Bank

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

Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes and start by talking about these court cases yesterday that create more complications particularly for the President's health care plan.

The idea that the law is specific, which is what the Washington, DC, Federal Court of Appeals said--the law specifically says, in the case they dealt with, that people can only get the taxpayer subsidy if they work through the State exchanges. There is no question that the law, in dealing with this issue, in clear language makes that case, and the judges agreed that was the case made.

What happened was that not only did many States decide not to set up the exchanges because of the expense involved and the problems involved and the complications of the law, but even the States that did set up the exchanges couldn't get them to work. I don't know that any State spent more money than Oregon did--certainly they spent a lot of money-- and in the first 6 months did not sign up anybody--nobody. Not a single person was able to sign up through the exchange they set up.

Massachusetts--a State which actually had experience with its own law and which I would have thought would have been the easiest possible exchange to set up--also admitted they failed. Massachusetts has to go through the Federal exchange.

I think 36 States have either not set up the exchange or tried to and failed. So in 36 States the only option people have to get insurance in an exchange as an individual--many of their policies were previously canceled because of the law--is to go to the Federal exchange. Now, through a ruling in the DC court, they say you can go to the Federal exchange. We should understand this.

I have been on record saying I think people should try their best to have insurance. If the insurance people need is what the Federal Government prescribes people should have--and that is insurance people can afford--obviously the exchange can be a place to get it, and it is a place to get insurance whether it is subsidized or not. But many people will find that those new higher rates at the exchange, without taxpayer assistance, just don't work for them.

The law was poorly written. It was poorly structured. It was crammed down the throats of the minority in both the House and in the Senate and, in my view, the health care providers and people who want insurance in this country, in the way it was passed.

There are many lessons to be learned from the Affordable Care Act, and one is never pass a piece of legislation this way because the Richmond court said yesterday that there are other places in the law-- even though they surely said it was clear where the law refers to subsidizing people to get insurance

through the exchange, and they surely knew that was clear, they said there are other places in the law that indicate maybe that is not the way it was.

Why is that? Why wasn't that debated on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House? It wasn't debated because one side decided they were going to do this exactly the way they wanted to do it and they were going to do it by themselves. There was that brief moment where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate. They passed the current law that I fully believe nobody expected would be the health care law.

The way we used to pass laws in the Congress, through the entire constitutional history of the country, was that the Senate would pass a bill, the House would pass a bill, and then we would go to conference and figure out, No. 1, how the two bills came together and, No. 2, what didn't make as much sense--when we had time to step back and look at it--as it seemed to make in the heat of the floor debate.

That didn't happen with this law. Why didn't it happen with this law? Because by the time the Senate passed the bill and it was time for the House to deal with it, there were suddenly 59 Senators on the Democratic side in the majority of the Senate. We remember the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts. Everybody was surprised except maybe Scott Brown, but he was elected, so there were no longer 60 votes in the Senate, which is what it takes to do whatever the majority wants to do.

So apparently the message to the House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats and Speaker Pelosi, was the only way we are going to pass a health care bill that goes anywhere near this floor is to pass the bill the Senate passed. There will be no conference. There will be no cleaning up this piece of legislation. There will be no discussion as to what we can do to actually make this work. We are going to pass this bill.

Not a single Republican in the Senate voted for it, and not a single Republican in the House would vote for it.

What is the unintended consequence of that? How do we go back and clean up the bill? People decided, if they participated in that process, that their momentary power was so important they were not going to involve anybody else's ideas in a way that would get a single vote from the other side.

One of the great lessons to learn is if we are going to mess with everybody's health care and we are going to impact 16 or 18 percent of the entire economy, they better have buy-in from more than just one group of Americans who represent one political party or one point of view.

So now we have this confusion that will go on until I assume the Supreme Court determines the difference in these two Federal courts of appeal decisions, but it will be months before that happens. We will see if taxpayers subsidize others getting their insurance. We will see what happens to people who got a subsidy if the subsidy turns out to be one that was inappropriately given. And we will see how we move forward.

Then there is also this discussion going on--some of which we had on the floor last week--about religious freedom as it relates to that law. There is a so-called accommodation for religious groups who don't believe they should have to pay for certain things. The Little Sisters of the Poor--who, by the way, were listed on one advocacy group for the law as it was being applied--the Little Sisters of the Poor were listed as one of the 100 dirty employers in America because they worked with 100 church groups and others who tried to take this idea to court that people could be forced to do things that violate their faith principles. If we have come to a point that the Little Sisters of the Poor are one of the evil employers in America, we better think about how we got to this point.

Actually, Justice Sotomayor gave, on her own--the Little Sisters of the Poor said: Not only do we not want to do that, we don't agree with the so-called accommodation that if we sign a paper saying we don't want to do this but our insurance company will--what did the Little Sisters of the Poor think was wrong with that? What could possibly be wrong with that? All they are asked to do is to sign a piece of paper that says they believe it is wrong but it is OK with them if somebody else pays for it. That is obviously not right. Justice Sotomayor, on her own, gave the relief the Little Sisters of the Poor asked for, but then only a few weeks later she is outraged when the rest of the Court gives the exact same relief to Wheaton College.

Wheaton College--a Christian college near Chicago and the President's home State--has a long-term commitment to their faith principles, and they basically said: We are just like the Little Sisters of the Poor. We don't believe this is right, and we don't want to sign a piece of paper that says we think it is wrong but it is OK with us if somebody else pays for it.

Then, in a story I just read today, there was the constant concern that the health care plan narrows one's ability to get health care because it restricts the network one can go to. In at least one State, half of the hospitals in the State don't participate in anything people could get access to through the Affordable Care Act as an individual or a family. So people have to drive by their old hospital, drive by their old doctor's office to get to a doctor or a hospital that may or may not see them. I think the hospital has to see you; I don't think the doctor does. But people have to drive by the old to get to the new.

We just had this big discussion. I had the great opportunity to speak at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday, and obviously, as did everybody else there, I had on my mind what was happening with the Veterans' Administration. At the same time we are talking about how to give veterans more choices, we are talking about how to give everybody else fewer choices.

This is a great quote: Networks help to contain costs. Well, of course they do. If a person can't get to see the doctor or it is inconvenient to go to the hospital, of course it contains costs.

Then we have the bill on the floor this week about economic opportunity, economic advancement. One of the great attacks on economic opportunity has been the attack on the 40-hour workweek. What happened to the 40-hour workweek for many people working in this country? The Federal Government, for the first time ever, said employers have to provide insurance and this is what it has to look like. Whether you can afford it as an employer or not, whether your employees want to take it or not, you have to provide insurance. This is what it is supposed to look like for everybody who works 30 hours or more.

Actions have consequences. No matter what the administration might think about EPA rules on water, EPA rules on the utility bill, HHS rules on health care, actions have consequences, and a lot of people who used to work 40 hours now may be working 50 hours, but they are doing it at two different jobs, neither of which has benefits. The 40- hour job that in more cases than not had benefits that both the employer and the employee thought were good--and 85 percent of everybody who got health insurance at work thought it was good, thought it met their needs--85 percent. Most people had insurance at work, but now many people go to work without insurance, while the only people at the place they go to work who get insurance are the managers and the longtime employees or the people who work more than 30 hours.

The chances to advance if you are in a part-time job are a lot less than the chances to advance if you are in a full-time job. I suggest if we were really trying to get people to work here this week, instead of making political points, we would be talking about the 40-hour workweek, we would be talking about the advanced manufacturing bill the Senator from Ohio Mr. Brown and I have that others are very interested in--and it is bipartisan interest--we would be talking about the BRIDGE Act that allows more infrastructure building that Senator Warner and I have--another bipartisan piece of legislation--we would be talking about the Build America Act that helps State and local governments with infrastructure by allowing companies--the very companies, apparently, that are being talked about this week in a piece of legislation everybody knows cannot pass that has no bipartisan support--we would be talking about companies that would be allowed to bring profits they have made overseas--they pay taxes on it overseas--that they would

be allowed to bring those profits here in a way that would encourage State and local governments to expand their infrastructure and maintain their infrastructure, making their sewer system, their water system, their road and bridge system all work better.

The unintended consequences of not thinking through what is the constitutional responsibility of the House and the Senate are significant. We need to understand the impact of what we do and the impact of what we fail to do. Failing to have a health care system that meets people's needs, failing to have a 40-hour workweek where we figure out how to encourage rather than discourage--failing to get people into that first job is a failure that lasts for a long time. If you do not advance in your twenties at work as you should, when you get to be 30, somebody else in a better economy in their twenties is likely to pass you because the opportunity you had was disrupted by circumstances that the government could not control or in many cases today circumstances the government could control and actually works in a way that makes those circumstances worse, not better.

I would like to see us do the kinds of things that get people to work, talk about the kind of legislation that is bipartisan, that could pass both Houses of Congress. There are plenty of them out there. I continue to hope we figure out how to get to it.

I yield the floor.

If nobody is prepared to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the legislation pending before the Senate, the so-called Bring Jobs Home Act. I oppose this bill because it is a political stunt designed as an election-year campaign ploy that will have no meaningful impact on job creation or on economic growth. In fact, this bill is a carbon copy of a bill the Senate rejected 2 years ago when it was offered by another Democratic Senator who just happened to also be up for reelection.

Simply put, if there is a Democratic bill on the Senate floor supposedly about outsourcing, you can rest assured it must be election season. The bill before us purports to deal with the problem of companies relocating jobs from the United States to foreign countries by denying the deduction associated with doing so. This must be the tax benefit for shipping jobs overseas that we heard so much about from the Obama campaign in 2008 and again in 2012.

There is only one problem with repealing this special tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. It does not exist. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Under present law, there are no targeted tax credits or disallowances of deductions related to relocating business units inside or outside the United States.'' That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

This statement is not surprising, given that numerous independent fact checkers disputed the repeated claims in 2008 that companies were receiving tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. These fact checkers called that statement ``false'' and ``misleading.'' But I guess the facts do not matter when it is an election year. What this bill will do is insert yet more complexity and uncertainty into our Tax Code.

The reality is the United States economy is a $17 trillion enterprise, with businesses all across this country constantly closing old operations and opening new ones. If this bill becomes law, companies that might want to close an old factory or open a new one would now have to worry if they will have to pay a tax penalty, even if their decisions are totally unrelated to any business decisions they might make outside of the United States.

The legislation also includes a new tax credit for companies that eliminate a business operation in a foreign country and move that operation to the United States. Well, that sounds like a good idea. But consider how this would tilt the playing field against companies here in America that have not opened operations overseas. A purely domestic company that opens a new factory in my State of South Dakota will not get a Federal tax credit for doing so, but a global company with jobs overseas will get a generous credit under this bill.

Consider what a coalition of leading business organizations made up of the Business Roundtable, the Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had to say recently in a letter regarding the legislation that is pending before us.

Many of the major business organizations in this country said:

While intended to promote U.S. job creation, the

legislation actually would have the unintended consequence of

making it even more difficult for American worldwide

companies to compete at home and in world markets, thereby

placing at risk jobs of American workers.

This is a letter from some of the major business organizations in this country.

If we want greater economic growth and more jobs, we need a Tax Code that creates a level playing field, not one that picks winners and losers based on the preferences of Members of Congress.

Even if we were to assume that a new tax credit for insourcing would be a good thing, the official estimate of the bill from the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that this particular tax credit will have essentially no impact on our economy. According to this new estimate, the new insourcing credit will provide a tax credit to U.S. companies of $35 million a year. That is $35 million out of a $17 trillion economy or, put another way, this credit will equal .000002 percent of annual U.S. economic activity. Yes, that is a decimal point followed by five zeroes. This bill isn't a drop in the budget; it is more like a drop in the Pacific Ocean.

Yet despite the fact this legislation won't help our economy or create jobs or make America more competitive in the global economy, I voted with most of my colleagues to move forward with this debate because I believe we need to have a robust debate about those measures that will energize our economy.

As such, I filed a number of amendments that would have a meaningful, positive impact on our economy--unlike, I might add, the underlying bill. For example, I filed an amendment to make the small business expensing limits, which expired at the end of last year, permanent, something that I hear about consistently from farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in my State of South Dakota.

These limits allow small businesses, farmers, and ranchers to deduct up to $500,000 per year in expenses, making it easier for these businesses to grow and to hire new workers.

I filed an amendment to make the R&D tax credit permanent. This amendment would also strengthen the credit by raising the credit rate from 14 percent to 20 percent, thus making this credit more competitive with the research incentives offered by many European and Asian nations.

I have also filed an amendment to improve the tax treatment of S corporations if they convert into a C corporation, thus making this popular form of business operation more easily accessible. This amendment would also make it easier for S corporations to give appreciated property to charity.

I filed an amendment to make permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects most Internet users in America from taxes on their Internet access. This law was first enacted in 1998. For more than 15 years it has helped our economy grow, and it has helped the digital economy flourish by keeping State and local taxes off of Internet access, regardless of consumers' access to the Internet via their home computers or by handheld device. Unfortunately, this law is scheduled to

expire in just over 3 months on November 1 if we don't take action to prevent that.

Some may claim that my amendments are partisan amendments--that these tax relief measures are simply Republican priorities that can't muster support on the Democrat side of the aisle. The problem with this claim is that all the measures I have just mentioned have found Democratic support already--significant Democratic support.

Consider the R&D amendment I just mentioned. It is identical to the bill that passed the House of Representatives with 274 votes in favor, including 62 House Democrats. That is right, roughly one-third of House Democrats have already voted for this exact amendment.

The same is true for the small business expensing amendment I mentioned. An identical measure passed the House in June with 272 votes, including 53 House Democrats. Consider the S corporation improvements, which were passed by the House with 263 votes, including 42 House Democrats voting yes.

Consider my amendment to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. My bill, with Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, to make this law permanent has 52 Senate supporters.

In fact, this bill has so much support that an identical bill in the House, just last week, passed by a voice vote. This measure, supported by a majority of Senators, sponsored by the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, and approved by the House of Representatives by a voice vote isn't even scheduled for a vote in the Senate. What a shame.

Consider the medical device tax repeal, which is supported by 79 Senators, including 34 Democratic Senators.

Unlike the minuscule economic impact of the bill pending on the Senate floor before us now, repealing the medical device tax would remove an ObamaCare tax increase totaling $24 billion over 10 years on some of the most innovative companies in America. According to a survey by the trade association AdvaMed, the medical device tax is estimated to destroy as many as 165,000 American jobs.

So let's be clear. It is not that there aren't reasonable measures to boost our economy that we could be considering. All of the measures I have mentioned have broad bipartisan support. The problem is simply that the Democratic majority refuses to allow their consideration.

The Senate majority would prefer we spend our time on inconsequential election-year gimmicks rather than any of the job-creating measures I have just mentioned.

In fact, Senate Democrats have chosen to block nearly all Republican amendments rather than risk having to take difficult votes. Consider that the Senate has had rollcall votes on only 12 Republican amendments since last July. House Democrats--the minority in the House of Representatives--in contrast have had 189 amendments voted on during that same period of time.

Put another way, House Democrats have been allowed, on average, more than one vote for each legislative day the House has been in session over the past year. In the Senate, Senate Republicans have been allowed just one vote per month.

Let me repeat that. The minority in the House is being allowed one vote per legislative day. The minority in the Senate is being allowed one vote per month.

The Senate used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body. That description now sounds like a cruel joke, considering how few amendments we have been allowed to consider.

The other measure our economy desperately needs is comprehensive tax reform. If we really care about making America a more attractive place to do business so as to lure new business investment jobs, we need to have a much simpler Tax Code with tax rates that are competitive with our global competitors.

Let's consider the facts. When President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into law, the United States had a corporate tax rate that was more than 5 percentage points below our major economic competitors.

The U.S. corporate tax rate has basically stayed the same since 1986. Yet today our tax rate is the highest in the developed world and is more than 14 percentage points higher than the average of developed economies.

Why? Look at what has happened. Unlike the United States, other nations decided they needed to lower their tax rates to spur economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, today we are reaping the negative consequences of inaction as we see more and more investment and economic activities moving to those nations that have created a more favorable business environment.

If we want to keep the best, highest-paying jobs at home, we don't need new tax credits targeted at a narrow set of companies. We need a complete overhaul of our tax system with new, competitive tax rates and a modernized system for taxing the global revenues of American companies. Yes, it is going to be a difficult lift, but it is far from impossible.

Consider the United Kingdom, which as recently as 2010 had a 28 percent tax rate and an outdated system for taxing global income. The UK enacted tax reform that will result in a 20-percent tax rate by next year and has already resulted in a modernized system for taxing the income earned by global U.K. companies.

Over the past 5 years, Japan--another major economic competitor of the United States--has done something similar. Japan cut its corporate tax rate by 5 percentage points and has moved to a more competitive system for taxing global income.

If the UK, Japan, and other nations can modernize their Tax Code for competition in the 21st century global marketplace, certainly we in the United States can do it as well.

In closing, I hope the Senate Democrats will change course and allow for an open and robust amendment process to allow a wide variety of job-creating measures to be considered.

Our economy, still mired in the sluggish Obama economy, could certainly use it. But, if not, I look forward to a future Congress where the Senate can get back to real debate and real solutions.

I hope that once the campaigning is done, once the election-year slogans have been retired, we can get back to real, substantive legislating.

American families and workers deserve permanent tax and regulatory relief. They deserve a better economy than they have today, and they deserve a Senate that once again functions as the world's greatest deliberative body and puts their interests first, and their futures, their quality of life, and their standard of living where they should be.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Tennessee leaves, I wish to thank him very much for joining Senator Boxer and me in this Senate to create a dynamic that will enable us to do our job. He shows time and again the courage to keep out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. So does Barbara Boxer. She has shown extraordinary leadership in the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve. I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. She and Senator Vitter and Senator Barrasso, with a little help from me, were able to guide through committee and report a secure transportation bill--a plan for the transportation for our country, including roads, highways, bridges, transit systems--and report it out of committee without amendment, without a dissenting vote, and bring it to the floor of the Senate.

If it were that easy, we wouldn't all be here tonight. There is other legislation, companion legislation that came out of the commerce committee for, among other things, freight railroads, passenger railroads. They have jurisdiction over aviation as well. The banking committee has jurisdiction over transit systems. So there is a shared responsibility here, and there is a shared responsibility to figure out how to pay for all of this. How do we pay for this?

We are spending somewhere around $17 billion, $18 billion a year for the Federal share for transportation projects. That is roughly about half of what we are spending if we add in State and local monies during the course of the year. We have run out of money. We literally run out of money next month for the Federal Government to do its share.

So what do we do? Well, I will tell my colleagues what we do. We are not going to continue to put it on our credit card, and we are not going to keep turning to countries such as China and saying: How about loaning us some more money so we can replenish the general fund, which will replenish the transportation trust fund.

Why do we want to be beholden to China? I don't think we want to be in that situation.

What we need to do is summon the courage to do what people sent us to do, and that is to make tough decisions.

Senator Corker is--I call him a recovering mayor from Chattanooga. I was the Governor for some years in Delaware. We are a bunch of former Governors and mayors here and some county executives, and we bring those experiences with us. When we are in our State or our city or our county and we are trying to plan and fund and permit contracts for roads, highways, and bridges or transit projects, it takes a long time. People are watching and wondering, why do we need a 6-year bill or why do we need predictability and certainty that the money is going to be there for these projects? It is because they take a long time. It is not uncommon to spend years planning a project.

The problem is, as the Senator from Tennessee said, five times we have done stop-and-go. I think it has actually been 11 times in the last 5 years that we have done stop-and-go funding and we haven't provided the certainty and predictability that State and local governments are begging for and that transportation authorities around the country are pleading for. The road contractors and folks who build these systems and transit systems, the folks who work on them, the labor unions--everybody is pleading with us to do our job. And what we have done--the House, God bless them, reported out a bill that was, unfortunately, a straight party-line vote. They reported out a bill that funds the transportation trust fund to allow projects to be built through May 31 of next year.

Some people say: Well, that is fine.

That is not fine. It is not 6 years, and, frankly, Senator Boxer called it kicking the can down the road. We have done that again and again--11 times over the last 5 years. There is a good chance that when we get to next

May 31, we will say: Well, it is too hard to make these tough decisions as to how we are going to pay for this stuff, and we will kick the can down the road again, providing more uncertainty, more unpredictability.

It is wasteful. It is inefficient. It is foolish. We look impotent. It is not the way for us to do business.

What Senator Corker and I and a number of others who are going to be joining us in this cause will call for doing is pretty simple. Instead of providing $11 billion for the transportation trust fund from what I will call a bunch of different sources of revenue--some of them more equal than others but some of them pretty questionable; but in some cases we are stealing revenues over the next 10 years for stuff that has nothing to do with transportation projects and using that money to fund transportation projects for, I don't know, 7, 8, 9, 10 months instead of actually doing what we have done for years--have a user-pay system where those who use our roads, highways, and transit systems pay for them. That is what we ought to be doing. But the problem with what the House has suggested we do is we will never--maybe never--get back to providing the certainty and predictability we need. We continue to drive up costs and say to all of the folks who are ordering us to do our job: Well, we don't have the courage to do it now. Maybe we will have it next year.

I think that will be a huge mistake.

I like to think of our Nation's economy as a car at the bottom of a steep hill, and 5 years ago our Nation's economy was at the bottom of the steep hill. We could have literally dropped off a cliff. Between July 1 and December 31, 2008, we lost 2.5 million jobs. In the first 6 months of 2009 we lost 2.5 million jobs. Literally the week Barack Obama and Joe Biden were sworn in as President and Vice President, we had 628,000 people file for unemployment insurance. In 1 week 628,000 filed for unemployment insurance. We know that anytime that number is over 400,000 people filing for unemployment insurance in a week, we are losing jobs in the economy. And that number stayed over 600,000 for too long. But it started to drop, and it dropped down to 550,000, then 500,000, eventually 450,000, and then 400,000, and a year or so ago we got under 400,000, and that number now is about 300,000. We are adding jobs.

Some would say: Well, they are not the kinds of jobs we want or need. But some are--a lot of them. Almost any job is better than nothing. And some of these jobs are very good and pay a fair amount of money. Here is where we were.

We were that car at the bottom of a very steep hill 5 years ago and trying to climb up the hill. It was slow going. We kept going. We kept going. We have added jobs; sometimes, some months, 50,000, some months 100,000. Now we are up to over 250,000 new jobs a month. But that car-- if you will, we are that car--is climbing that hill. We are making it to the top. We are at the crest of the hill. As we look at it we can say it is downhill now.

As we add more and more jobs every month, we have the option of doing two things: One, we can mash down on the accelerator, kick it into high gear, kick this economy into high gear, where it needs to go or we can start tapping on the brakes--start tapping on the brakes, slow things down, introduce uncertainty, lack of predictability. What we offer in our amendment, Senator Corker and Senator Boxer and myself and others, is a better likelihood that we are going to be pushing down on the accelerator next year.

We are not going to just put hundreds of thousands of people to work across our country building roads, highways, bridges and transit centers, but we are actually going to make our transportation system more efficient, which in the long haul is most important, to move product, whether it is from one coast to the other, north to south or just around our States. That is the key. How do we do this in a more efficient way? How do we make our economy work better? So this works at couple of different levels.

If we say we are going to kick the can down the road into next year and we will fund these programs until May 31, I do not know what is going to give us the courage next May 31 to fund a 6-year transportation program. As Senator Corker said, we have seven or eight people who are leaving at the end of this year. They are not running for reelection. They are retiring. They want to leave, saying: We did this on our watch. It was our job to get this done and we did. That is exactly why people send us in the first place, to make those kinds of decisions.

This is not something Democrats can do by ourselves. This is not something Republicans can do by themselves. What I am very proud of, in both committees, is that the Democrats and Republicans voted for it-- the Finance Committee voted for a similar proposal, not quite a majority but a very respectable showing. We have been working and gaining support literally by the day for what we are going to do.

Senator Boxer ran through some of the folks, some of the organizations that are supporting this, a lot of State and local governments, State departments of transportation, folks who build roads, folks who run the roadbuilding companies, folks who do the actual labor for these projects, the American Trucking Associations, AAA, you name it. There is a huge bunch of people out there who want us to do our job. They do not want us to wait until some other time. They want us to do it now. We can do that.

We are not here tonight to say this is how we are going to fund a 6- year plan. There are a lot of good ideas, and Senator Boxer ran through some of those. The idea is to create a situation where we are going to be compelled and we will actually figure out, of all those options--and there may be some other ones--how do we get this done. The idea that we continue to borrow money, to borrow money over the next 10 years-- revenue streams have nothing to do with transportation, nothing to do with transportation. If we pretend that is going to fund our transportation budget for 5 or 6 months, that is just laughing stock. We look so foolish doing that. It is also highly inefficient, as I said.

I wish I could remember exactly what Mark Twain once said--maybe the Presiding Officer can help me on this later--but he once said something like this: Do the right thing. You will please your friends and amaze your enemies--something along those lines. For the record we will correct it. But please your friends and amaze or confound your enemies. Why do we not try that for a change. That would be a great way to finish this year.

I again thank Senator Boxer. I thank Senator Corker for joining me in what I think is a noble mission. I never take anything for granted, but I think if we work it hard enough, we may surprise some people in a good way.

I see my friend from Texas--whose mother was born in Wilmington, DE, 1 of 17 children--is rising for recognition.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the ongoing crisis in Venezuela. With so many crises happening around the globe these days, political turmoil in Venezuela has slipped from the headlines and sometimes seems easy to forget. The situation commands our attention. In Venezuela the protests against oppression go on, with 6,369 recorded rallies this year, the most in over a decade.

When Hugo Chavez's death was confirmed 15 months ago, there were hopes that his hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro would prove more moderate and friendly to the United States. These hopes quickly proved groundless, as Maduro doubled down on his predecessor's disastrous socialist economic policies and his close partnership with Castro's Cuba, not to mention Khamenei's Iran.

Earlier this year, as Venezuela endured shortages of basic goods from baby formula to caskets, from beginning of life to end and everything in between, while an increasingly authoritarian regime trampled their constitutional rights, the people finally took to the streets to protest Maduro's corrupt and unjust rule. Demanding freedom, they marched peaceably while Maduro's Cuban-trained militia tried to incite violence.

Following the wide-ranging protests of February 12, 2014, Maduro's regime claimed that opposition leaders were

personally responsible for the violence that Maduro's regime had deliberately provoked. Six days later, the leader of the Voluntad Popular Party Leopoldo Lopez demonstrated his respect for rule of law when he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.

He could have stayed in hiding, he could have gone into exile, but he believes it is only through taking action that change can come to Venezuela. Here is Mr. Lopez. As he surrendered to the authorities to be thrown in prison, hundreds of thousands of supporters accompanied him to the police van. Mr. Lopez has been held in the Ramo Verde military prison ever since. In early June a judge ordered him held for trial, which will begin this week.

His wife Lilian Tintori is in Washington today to draw attention to his case. She spoke powerfully at the National Press Club about how she and her children have missed their dad, have missed Leopoldo while he has been in prison, but they know their daddy is doing what he must to fight for the men and women of Venezuela.

Maduro's so-called evidence against Mr. Lopez includes the claim that he was somehow sending secret subliminal messages inciting violence, when he in fact explicitly called on his followers to protest peacefully. Let me repeat that. Mr. Lopez explicitly asked his followers to protest peacefully against the oppressive regime of Maduro. What does Maduro say? That apparently Leopoldo has the power to subliminally suggest violence when his words say, ``Don't engage in violence.''

This would be comical and absurd were it not the basis for an indictment that Maduro is seeking to lock Leopoldo up for 10 years in prison for daring to speak out against oppression. It is important to understand the trial scheduled this week is no trial in the ordinary term. There will be no jury. There will be no evidence for the defense--not for lack of trying. Mr. Lopez is denied any opportunity to refute these bogus charges about his supposed subliminal powers because Mr. Lopez's defense team asked to submit the testimony of 60 witnesses.

The trial court denied all 60, said no witnesses will be allowed for the defense. Mr. Lopez's team asked to submit 13 videos. The trial court denied all 13. Mr. Lopez's defense team asked to submit the testimony of 12 experts. The trial court denied all 12. So in this so- called trial, which is nothing but a sham, the defense will have no evidence because the trial court has already decided they will allow no evidence in support of someone speaking for freedom, someone speaking for the people. The evidence will be kept out of this show trial.

That is not an unusual path. Dictators, totalitarian regimes from Stalin to Castro throughout the ages have engaged in the same show trials that they use to brutally silence any who would dare to speak out against them. The undeniable fact is that Nicolas Maduro has no interest in justice in this case or in the nation of Venezuela.

The official charges are public incitement, property damage, and criminal conspiracy, but Mr. Lopez's real crime is quite simply the exercise of his rights provided by article 57 of the Constitution of Venezuela, which states:

Everyone has the right to express freely his or her

thoughts, ideas or opinions orally, in writing or by any

other form of expression, and to use for such purpose any

means of communication and diffusion, and no censorship shall

be established.

That is what the Constitution of Venezuela says, but Nicolas Maduro says Leopoldo Lopez goes to prison and wants him to stay there for 10 years because he spoke out and spoke the truth. Mr. Lopez freely expressed his criticism of Maduro's failed leadership, and for that he has been unceremoniously thrown in jail and faces a sham trial that could rob his 4-year-old daughter and his 1-year-old son of having a daddy for the next 10 years.

As his wife Lilian wrote today in the Washington Post:

No one should doubt why Leopoldo is in prison: Venezuelan

President Nicolas Maduro is afraid of him, and he has great

reason to be. Chavez did not deliver and Maduro has not

delivered on their promises, and they have systematically

dismantled our fundamental freedoms--free speech, freedom of

association, freedom of the press and freedom to vote for

candidates of our choosing.

The most basic foundational human rights, and for advocating for those Leopoldo Lopez is in prison.

Every American should take an interest in Mr. Lopez's fate. Not only is he a good friend to our country, having attended both Kenyon College and Harvard, he also advocates the sort of political and economic reforms that would return Venezuela to its historic place as a close partner to the United States, a development that would be of great advantage in our hemisphere.

Mr. Lopez's case also reminds us of the precious freedoms we enjoy in the United States that can all too quickly be taken away.

Article 57 should have particular resonance for us as our right to free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the government for a redress of grievances.

There is a reason the Framers chose this subject for the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, because upon these rights all of our liberties are built. No freedom is more vital to true democracy than the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience and the freedom to speak as we choose without government censors, for when these freedoms are restricted citizens lose their ability to express their opposition to the government.

As Venezuela shows us, this process can take place slowly, over time, but the eventual result is that a citizen who speaks out is silenced and punished.

I have to say Leopoldo Lopez's situation is one that has resonance in my family. Fifty-seven years ago my father was in a prison in another Latin American country, the country of Cuba. My dad was 17 when he was imprisoned and tortured in a Cuban jail. Leopoldo is 43, the very same age I am today.

Leopoldo Lopez's case is, unfortunately, not an isolated case in Maduro's Venezuela. Forty-six people have been killed, thousands have been detained, and more than 100 are still in prison.

His fellow opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, recently discovered that she too had been charged last month with incitement to violence related to the February protests. She had never been informed there was a criminal case against her and now she faces potentially 6 years in prison as well.

Maduro's actions are those of a dictator who knows he is deeply unpopular, that his policies are a dismal failure, and that to survive he has to silence the voices of those who oppose him and offer a viable alternative, who oppose him and offer freedom.

The people of Venezuela showed in February that they are ready for a change from the long slog into totalitarian socialism that was begun by Chavez and is being continued by Maduro. Now Maduro is trying to use a cloud of censorship to isolate Venezuelans from each other and from the rest of the world. We should not look the other way.

Again, from Lillian's Washington Post op-ed today:

We need to send a message to the government that it cannot

trample on the rights of its people with impunity.

Accordingly, I call on President Maduro to release my husband

and the more than 100 political prisoners being held in

Venezuela. But my actions alone are not enough. My husband

needs the support of all countries that stand for freedom.

In this, the United States should lead the way. America should speak with a clarion voice: Free Leopoldo Lopez. As the hashtag #SOSVenezuela has rocketed around the globe, it shows the power of speaking the truth: Free Leopoldo Lopez.

The United States should do everything it can to shine the bright light of truth and freedom on this repression by highlighting Leopoldo Lopez's case.

President Obama should stand and lead, demanding the freedom of Leopoldo Lopez.

Secretary Kerry should stand and lead, demanding the freedom of Leopoldo Lopez.

Every Member of this body should join in bipartisan unison demanding the freedom of Leopoldo Lopez.

We should not and cannot let this unjust persecution pass unnoticed but, rather, we should help the people of

Venezuela choose a different path, a path of freedom, a path of prosperity, and a path of friendship that will return this one-time enemy, the nation of Venezuela, to its traditional role of America's partner and friend. All of us should join in demanding and working for the freedom of Leopoldo Lopez.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I listened carefully as the Republican leader came to the floor to talk about the Senate issues, and he failed to mention this issue, S. 2569, which we will be voting on in 1 hour and 10 minutes. In fact, we have listened carefully. There has not been a single Republican Senator who has come to the floor to literally debate this issue or to disagree with this bill. What is this measure that is the source of such a mystery on the floor of the Senate?

Well, it is an effort by Senator John Walsh of Montana and Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan to bring good-paying manufacturing and other jobs back home to America. Wouldn't you think that would be worth a comment from the Republican leader or perhaps from one of the Republican Senators? I hope it means they are going to join us in a bipartisan effort in a little over 1 hour to bring this measure to the floor.

What does it say? Simple. We will give a tax break to companies that bring jobs home from overseas. We will reduce the current tax incentives for companies to ship American jobs overseas. There it is-- straightforward, clear--bring the jobs home.

I would think this would be so bipartisan it would get a unanimous vote at 11 o'clock. But the fact is, despite the support of all Democratic Senators, we are still struggling to find five Republicans who will join us so we can move to this measure and do something in the Tax Code to help bring American jobs back home instead of shipping them overseas.

Senator Reid, our majority leader, spoke this morning about another aspect of this issue. Sadly, in my home State of Illinois, a major company, AbbVie, which was formerly part of Abbot Laboratories, the eighth largest pharmaceutical company, just announced last week they are going to relocate their corporate base of operations to an island off the U.K.

The U.K. is a beautiful country, but to think that American companies such as Abbot--now AbbVie--are prepared to desert America, is worth a little reflection.

Senator Reid raised an important point. Pharmaceutical companies in America depend on tax-supported organizations and agencies. The National Institutes of Health, the leading biomedical research agency in the world, is supported by American tax dollars. Pharmaceutical companies like AbbVie, with blockbuster drugs such as Humira, which has earned them over $1 billion so far this year, rely on the NIH for research and then rely on the taxpayer-supported U.S. Patent Office to protect their legal rights.

They also count on the Food and Drug Administration, supported with U.S. tax dollars, to do the testing necessary to bring this drug to market. It is said the approval by the FDA of a drug in the United States is really the gold standard--more than any other country.

So here is a pharmaceutical company which is very profitable, with over 4,000 employees, based in the United States, based in the State of Illinois for virtually its entire existence, now picking up and leaving. Why? They are leaving to avoid paying taxes in the United States.

What is the definition of a corporate ingrate? I think it would start with a company that has become immensely profitable because of the United States of America and the agencies of its government that support that company which is now turning its back on the United States.

Across the street the Supreme Court tells us with regularity we have to view corporations now as persons. They are no longer legal creations. They have some personhood under the Constitution, according to five of our Supreme Court justices--personhood that entitles them to freedom of speech under the Citizens United decision, personhood which entitles them under the Hobby Lobby decision to have religious freedom as a corporation.

So if we are going to give personhood to corporations, what can we say of this decision to renounce their American citizenship to get a tax break?

I think what we can say is these inverters are deserters, to quote Allan Sloan and others who have written about this issue in the past.

I am troubled by this, and I am troubled there isn't a sense of outrage on both sides of the aisle.

Senator Reid has spoken about this issue, I have spoken to it, Senator Levin of Michigan has been a leader on this issue, and yet the Republicans are strangely silent. Do they believe it is in the best interests of the United States for our major corporations to pick up, cut and run, go to some foreign land, claim this is now their new headquarters, and avoid paying taxes in the United States?

This process, known as inversion, is a clever tax dodge. At the end of the day, who loses? Well, I can tell you. The taxpayers in this country lose because valuable revenue and resources are no longer there to sustain our great Nation, whether it is the defense of this country, the building of infrastructure, great agencies like the National Institutes of Health--the list goes on. There will be money lost.

Who are the winners? The winners are those investment bankers, folks who are buying up these corporations and coming up with these tax dodges and incentives to raise stock prices at any cost.

I often wonder, as I look at the list of members of the boards of directors of AbbVie and Walgreens, if there wasn't in their boardroom one person who held up their hand and said: Does anybody else feel a little sick about this--that we would give up on America, that AbbVie would renounce its American citizenship; that we would listen to those who say stock price is more important than loyalty to the country we live in, the country we have prospered in? Was there one hand in the air dissenting from this corporate desertion of the United States?

I think this is worth a debate. I think it is worth bringing this bill to the floor, S. 2569. In a little over 1 hour we will have a chance to decide whether it should come to the floor. There aren't many things that we do around here that have an impact on the lives of Americans. This one will. This bill will bring jobs home from overseas.

Senator Reid has suggested we move into the inversion--a change in the Tax Code. I support that. I am a cosponsor of Senator Levin's bill. That, to me, is overdue. Last week Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew issued a statement about this warning us this was just the beginning; a dozen corporations are now working on this.

One of the corporate leaders on the street, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, said in Fortune magazine: We shouldn't moralize about this decision.

He characterized it as largely a protest against the Tax Code--the unfair Tax Code.

I wish to remind Mr. Dimon and the CEOs and members of the boards of these corporations, this Tax Code, which certainly should be reformed, is the same Tax Code that has generated record-breaking corporate profits and record-breaking CEO salaries.

I didn't hear complaints about that so-called unfair Tax Code when these corporations were making record-breaking profits or getting compensation at record-breaking levels. It troubles me too that many of the corporations that are now rationalizing abandoning the United States not that long ago were counting on this government and taxpayers all across the United States to bail them out.

When the Wall Street banks were failing, when AIG was flat on its back, did they turn to Ireland or Switzerland for help? No. They turned to Washington and the United States of America and to the taxpayers who came through with billions of dollars to save them from their perfidy.

That is the reality of history, a reality which many of these corporate deserters are now ignoring. I have trouble with this-- clearly, a great deal of trouble. I am going to offer an amendment, should we get on this bill, called the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act.

Very simply, here is what it says: If you have a corporation in the United States, headquartered in our country, and you have not moved jobs overseas; if you pay your employees at least $15 an hour, which means they don't qualify for most Federal benefits, just their paycheck; if you will give them quality health insurance as required by the Affordable Care Act; if you will provide at least 5 percent of their income as a contribution by the company toward their retirement; and if you will give a preference for the hiring of veterans, you will be entitled to the patriot employer tax credit, a credit for each of your employees. I think that is the proper incentive--incentivizing and rewarding companies that are making a positive difference in the lives of their employees, staying in the United States, committed to this country.

How would I pay for that? Well, I have an idea. It would end the deductions currently available for corporations that want to move their jobs overseas. To me, that makes perfect sense. Encourage the payment of Americans in good-paying companies and discourage sending jobs overseas.

Why won't the Republicans discuss this with us? Why isn't this a bipartisan issue? Do they honestly believe only Democrats object to shipping American jobs overseas? Everyone objects to it. We want to keep good-paying jobs at home. We want to be able to walk into stores and see the label ``Made in the U.S.A.'' more often. We want to encourage our companies to stay in America, to set the standard in America, to lead in the world. Let's have a tax code that helps us reach that goal.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of

the quorum call be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans for the remainder of the debate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on June 11--a month and a half ago--in a very strong bipartisan way, the Senate voted 93 to 3--an overwhelming vote--to pass legislation written by Senator John McCain, a Republican, and myself to address crises facing our veterans community and the VA and to protect and defend the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us. I wish to take this opportunity again to thank Senator McCain for his very strong efforts on getting that legislation passed.

As you know, the legislation we passed was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, to cost about $35 billion. At just about the same time, the House of Representatives passed legislation dealing with, more or less, the same issues, and the bill they passed in the House was estimated by CBO to cost $44 billion--$9 billion more than what we passed in the Senate.

In the last 6 weeks, my staff, my colleagues, and I have been working very hard to refine this legislation, to come up with a more reasonable pricetag, and to address the needs of our veterans community in a significant way. In that process, I have been accused by some of ``moving the goalposts.'' I guess I have. I have moved the goalposts so the legislation we are introducing today is substantially lower-- substantially lower--than what passed the Senate and what passed the House. If that is called moving the goalposts, I suspect in this case it is moving the goalposts in a positive direction. In fact, the bill we are presenting would cost less than $25 billion--a lot of money, no doubt--but that is some $10 billion less than what we passed on the Senate floor, and it is $19 billion less than what the House passed.

Our proposal is a commonsense proposal which deals in a significant way with the needs of the veterans community. What it does is provide emergency funding for contract services so veterans can, when they find themselves in long waiting periods--as in fact is the case in a number of locations around the country--they can go outside of the VA and get private health care or care at a community health center or whatever. They no longer have to wait during this emergency period for long periods of time to get into the VA. I think that is a very important part of this proposal. It is something we have to do.

In addition, what we also say is if a veteran is living more than 40 miles from a VA facility--and there are veterans who in some cases are living hundreds of miles away--they do not have to, when they are ill, get in their car and travel for 3 or 4 hours to get health care at a VA facility. They will be able to go to a non-VA facility, a private physician, if they live more than 40 miles away from a VA facility. I think that is a significant step forward.

But what our legislation also does is address an issue of huge concern to the veterans community. Just yesterday--just yesterday--I received, and many members in the Veterans' Committee received, a letter from 16 major veterans organizations. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 16 major veterans organizations, including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars--the VFW--Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, and many others--wonderful veterans organizations that have worked for years representing the needs of millions and millions of veterans--what these organizations say in this letter is that while we must address the immediate crisis of doing away with these long waiting lines and allowing veterans to get private care, what they also say--loudly and clearly--is that the VA must have the doctors, the nurses, and the space capacity that it needs so that in the future it will be able to permanently eliminate these long waiting lines so that 2 years from now, 3 years from now, when veterans come into the VA, they will get quality care, they will get timely care. That is what the veterans organizations have said.

I will quote to you one small paragraph of a long letter. They say that the charge of the conference committee should be ``to ensure that all veterans currently waiting for treatment must be provided access to timely, convenient health care as quickly as medically indicated,'' and at the same time ``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.''

Last week, in a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee meeting, Sloan Gibson, the Acting Secretary of the VA, stated that the VA needed over $16 billion in order to hire thousands and thousands of doctors, nurses, other medical providers. In many VA facilities doctors do not have the examining rooms they need. There are space problems all over this country. What the veterans organizations--16 of them--said loudly and clearly is that Sloan Gibson, the new Acting Secretary of the VA-- approved with wide Republican support--they said we support his proposal.

Our legislation does not give the VA all that Mr. Gibson would like, but we do provide them with the doctors and the nurses and the medical staff they need so we do not continue to have

long waiting lines at VA hospitals all over this country, so we do not come back 2 years from now in the same position, with veterans not being able to get timely care.

I have worked for a month and a half with my House Republican colleagues, led by the Veterans' Affairs chairman there, Jeff Miller, to find a compromise. Everybody knows the House looks at the world differently than the Senate--we all know that--and if we go forward, we need a compromise.

We have put good-faith offers on the table time and time again and we have tried to meet our Republican colleagues more than halfway, but I am very sad to say that at this point--and I hope this changes--but at this point I can only conclude, with great reluctance, that the good faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side.

Standing here and saying this is the last thing I want to be doing. Our veterans deserve a responsible solution to this crisis.

Last night--this is an example of what has happened--somewhere around 10 o'clock in the night, the cochairman of the veterans conference committee, Mr. Miller in the House, announced unilaterally, without my knowledge or without my concurrence, that he was going to hold a so- called conference committee meeting in order to introduce his proposals.

Needless to say, his proposal is something I have yet to see. I do not know what it is. This is a proposal nobody on our side has seen. My understanding is he then wants to take this to the House on Monday to come up with a vote. In other words, his idea of negotiation is: We have a proposal. Take it or leave it. Any sixth grader in a school in the United States understands this is not negotiation, this is not what democracy is about.

I note the presence on the floor of the coauthor of the bill passed in the Senate, Senator McCain, and I am happy to yield the floor for Senator McCain.

First of all, I want to thank Senator McCain again for all of his hard work on this issue.

Let me ask a few questions. The Senator and I have been talking the last few days. Does the Senator not think--he has been here for 1 or 2 years--that the best way to go forward is for people to sit down at a table and knock out their differences? And then the idea of presenting it to a conference is absolutely right. But the Senator knows, and I know, that what conference committees are largely about are 5-minute speeches.

I have been disappointed that I have not--I think the Senator will agree with me, maybe not, that the best way forward is for people to sit down in a room and work out their differences, not to go forward with unilateral statements. Does that make sense?

Let me ask Senator McCain one more question. I thank the Senator very much. He is not on, at this moment, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, but he has jumped into this with both feet and is playing a very big role. Would the Senator be prepared if, generally speaking, what happens is the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and the House get together--you are not the chairman, you are not the ranking member, but I think you could play a good role. Would the Senator be prepared to sit down with the other four members, myself, the other three, and help us reach a compromise?

One more second. I wanted to paraphrase. Tell me if I am misquoting. I do not have it in front of me, but when we were debating this bill on the floor, the Senator said--we were talking about emergency funding--something to the effect of if this is not an emergency, I do not know

what an emergency is. Is that a correct paraphrase?

I thank Senator McCain very much for his statements and for his hard work on this and would reiterate what he said; that is, my belief that what we have here on the Senate floor, that if taking care of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us and who came home without arms or legs, or without their eyesight or 500,000 of them who came home with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury--if that is not an emergency, taking care of those brave men and women, I agree with Senator McCain, I do not know what an emergency is.

I am happy to yield the floor for my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

I thank Senator Begich.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the current bill before this body, the Bring Jobs Home Act.

At a time when Washington is stuck in political gridlock, I believe Democrats and Republicans should work together on policies that will create jobs not only in Nevada but, of course, across this country.

I have filed five amendments on policies I have been working on here in the Senate this Congress that will spur natural resources jobs throughout the West, and I stand before this body today to urge action on what I consider to be commonsense proposals.

As the Presiding Officer knows, roughly 85 percent of the land in Nevada is controlled by the Federal Government. Other Western States range somewhere between 50 percent and 80 percent. This situation presents our local and State governments with a lot of unique challenges.

Our communities' economic vitality is directly tied to the way the Federal Government manages our Federal lands. As a result, one of my top priorities in the Senate is to implement reforms that streamline bureaucratic redtape that gets in the way of natural resources job creation.

I have five amendments I have filed to deal with public land issues that specifically directly affect rural Nevada and rural America. I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to work with me so we can consider my amendments and other job-related amendments. If given the opportunity, we could spur natural resources-related economic development across this country and especially across the West.

My first amendment, the Lyon County Economic Development and Conservation Act, is a Nevada-centric jobs bill which I have been focusing on for years which, to the disappointment of my constituents, has been held up through Senate gridlock.

The Lyon County Economic Development and Conservation Act could transform the local economy of the county in my State that is struggling the most during this current recession. The bill allows the city of Yerington to partner with Nevada Copper to develop roughly 12,500 acres of land surrounding the Nevada Copper Pumpkin Hollow project site. The intent of this legislation is economic growth, and the land purchased by the city will be used for mining activities, industrial and renewable energy development, recreation, and open space. Enactment of this legislation is the last obstacle in the way of the company moving forward in the creation of over 1,000 jobs. For a rural county such as Lyon County, 1,000 jobs truly is a game changer.

My second amendment, the Public Lands Job Creation Act, will create jobs by streamlining the bureaucratic process, cutting redtape, and ensuring that the BLM reviews Federal Register notices in a timely manner.

The permitting and approval process for energy and mining projects on Federal lands takes several years, largely because of unnecessary delays, which costs businesses valuable time, resources, and jobs.

This amendment, which I have also introduced as stand-alone legislation, streamlines the process by holding these agencies accountable to work effectively and timely to limit the negative effects of bureaucratic delays. Specifically, if BLM does not review a Federal Register notice by 45 days, the notice will be considered to be approved and the State BLM office will immediately forward the notice to be published in the Federal Register. This type of work is basically the transfer of paperwork but a transfer that is consistently holding up important job-creating projects.

Earlier this year I facilitated a meeting between a local company going

through the process to start a large hard rock mineral mine in Elko County and the local BLM to break this bureaucratic logjam. This mine will create hundreds of new jobs. While we were able to get the ball rolling in this particular instance--and I greatly appreciated the agency's work to move forward--it also shouldn't require congressional interaction to spur prompt action.

My legislation will provide certainty to our local job creators.

My third amendment, the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act, is an initiative we have been working on for many years. This legislation is a strong bipartisan proposal that will help create jobs, progress toward energy independence, and preserve our Nation's natural wonders by spurring renewable energy development on public lands.

Energy is one of Nevada's greatest assets, and I believe continuing to develop renewable and alternative sources is important for Nevada's economic future. Geothermal and solar production in my State is a major part of the U.S. ``all the above'' energy strategy. In 2013 Nevada ranked second in the Nation for geothermal energy production and third for solar production. Eighteen percent of our total electricity generated came from renewable, compared to the national average of 13 percent.

Our Nation's public lands can play a critical role in that mission, but uncertainty in the permitting process impedes or delays our ability to harness the renewable energy potential. Under current law, permits for wind and solar development are completed under the same process for other surface uses, such as pipelines, roads, and power lines. The BLM and Forest Service need a permitting process tailored to the unique characteristics and impacts of renewable energy projects. This initiative develops a straightforward process that will drive investment toward the highest quality renewable sources.

In addition, the legislation ensures a fair return for public lands communities. Since Federal lands are not taxable, State and local governments deserve a share of the revenues from the sales of energy production on public lands that are within their county or State borders. These resources will help local governments deliver critical services and develop much needed capital improvement projects--projects such as roadways, public safety, and, of course, law enforcement.

In my opinion, this proposal is a win-win situation. It is good for economic development while at the same time protecting the natural treasures out West that all of us value most.

My fourth amendment, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, gets the government out of the way of our private sector natural resources job creators.

Instead of advocating for policies that will put people back to work, this administration's EPA continues to develop rules that will increase Americans' utility bills, cause companies to lay off employees, and stifle economic growth.

My amendment will specifically require the EPA to be transparent when proposing and issuing energy-related regulations with an economic impact of more than $1 billion. Additionally, it prohibits the EPA from finalizing a rule if the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with other relevant agencies, determines the rule would cause significant adverse effects to the economy.

Finally, my final amendment, the Emergency Fuel Reduction Act, tackles a major problem many of our communities out West are facing right now; that is, catastrophic wildfires.

One of the greatest challenges facing our western forests and rangelands is the growing severity and length of the fire season. Nevada is one of a handful of Western States that seemingly keeps enduring recordbreaking fire seasons year after year. We are always going to have fires out West, but we must be proactive in treating our forests and rangelands so that we can reduce the size, the frequency, and the intensity of these forest fires.

My amendment streamlines the bureaucratic process for fire prevention projects, where a dangerous density of fuels threatens critical infrastructure such as power lines, schools, and water delivery canals, private property owners who live adjacent to Federal lands, and areas that threaten endangered species candidates such as the greater sage- grouse.

Every year I hear from ranchers who live in northern Nevada's rural counties, such as Humboldt County, where, through no fault of their own, fires on Federal lands spread onto their private property. The Federal agencies have to prioritize proactive preventive work in these areas. My constituents should not have to suffer because the Federal Government is simply not doing their job to properly manage our own lands.

I think nearly everyone can agree on a commonsense proposal such as the Emergency Fuel Reduction Act.

If this body adopts my five amendments, Congress could go a long way toward spurring economic development and job creation within the mining, energy development, ranching, timber, and outdoor recreational industries. These types of jobs are the bedrock of our Western way of life, and concurrently these fields are struggling the most under this administration's restrictive Federal land management policies. It is no coincidence that our western rural communities are suffering from unemployment rates well above the national average. Let's get the government off their backs and allow them to do what they do best; that is, create jobs.

At a time when the American public continues to lose faith in Congress, I hope the Senate can put partisan politics aside and restore order to the traditional amendment process this deliberative body has been known for over time. We should break through the political gridlock and have an open amendment process in the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.