Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a 2 day hearing entitled, ``Wall Street Bank Involvement With Physical Commodities.'' After a 2 year bipartisan investigation, the subcommittee will hold a hearing examining the extent to which banks and their holding companies own physical commodities like oil, natural gas, aluminum and other industrial metals, as well as own or control businesses like power plants, oil and gas pipelines, and commodity warehouses.

The Subcommittee hearings have been scheduled for Thursday, November 20, 2014, and Friday, November 21, 2014. The hearing will begin on both days at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. A witness list will be available on Monday, November 17, 2014. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Madam President, the provision in the continuing resolution before us authorizes the President to train and equip friendly forces whose interests and objectives are aligned with ours so that they can fight on their own behalf, much as we have done elsewhere in the world--for example, a number of African countries which we have helped support their own freedom and independence, their own efforts to go after the terrorists who terrorized them. We have done that pursuant to provisions we have included in previous Defense authorization bills.

This year, as our Presiding Officer knows as a very important member of our committee, when the Armed Services Committee marked up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, we approved a similar Syria train-and-equip provision by a bipartisan vote of 23 to 3.

While ISIS is currently focused on building an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East, its poisonous ideology is hostile not only to the region but to the world, and there is a real risk that the area it controls could become a launching pad for future terrorist attacks against the United States and its friends and allies. ISIS is terrorizing the Iraqi and the Syrian people, engaging in kidnappings, killings, persecutions of religious minorities, and attacking schools, hospitals, and cultural sites.

The threat to Americans and American interests was dramatically and tragically brought home recently by the brutal beheading of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines.

The President has announced a four-pronged strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS. Those four prongs are as follows: first, increased support to Iraqi, Kurdish, and Syrian opposition forces on the ground; second, a systemic campaign of airstrikes against ISIS; third, improved intelligence and efforts to cut off ISIS's funding and recruiting; and fourth, continued humanitarian assistance to ISIS's victims.

Our senior military leaders support the President's strategy. When General Dempsey testified before the Armed Services Committee, I asked whether he personally supports the President's strategy, and of course I asked the question exactly that way--``Do you personally support the President's strategy?''--so that we would get his own answer and not simply the answer he might feel he has to give because of his Commander in Chief's position.

When we ask military officers for their own personal position, that is what they must give us. When we have confirmation hearings, we ask them that question: Will you give us your own personal opinion when you come before us even though it might differ from the administration in power? That is one of the questions we ask on every confirmation, and, of course, if we don't get the answer that they will, there will not be a confirmation.

So we asked and I asked as my first question a few days ago whether General Dempsey as Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff personally supports the President's strategy, and his response was, ``I do.'' He explained that the best way forward runs ``through a coalition of Arab and Muslim partners and not through ownership of this fight by the United States.'' Training and equipping the moderate Syrian opposition is a critical step. As General Dempsey explained, we need to build ``a force of vetted, trained moderate Syrians to take on ISIL in Syria'' because ``as long as ISIL enjoys the safe haven in Syria, it will remain a formidable force and a threat.''

Some colleagues have expressed the concern that this new military effort could lead us back into a quagmire that we entered with the Iraq invasion in 2003, but what we are voting on here is virtually the opposite of what was voted on in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq.

I voted against the Iraq authorization in 2002. I am voting for this train-and-equip authority today. The differences are huge between what was voted on in 2002 and what we are voting on today.

First, in 2003, we invaded Iraq and threw out Saddam Hussein's government. This year, by contrast, the Iraqi Government has requested our assistance against ISIS. This request has been joined by leaders of Iraq's Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and other religious minorities. The global community will provide support in response to this request, but ISIS remains a problem that only Iraqis and Syrians can solve. They can solve it with our help, but only they can solve it.

I am continuing on the differences. Indeed, the contrast between what we are voting on today and what was voted on in 2002 is relative to the same country, but what a difference.

In 2003, the United States and Britain invaded Iraq with token support from a handful of Western partners. It was a unilateral approach without visible participation or support from Arab or Muslim nations. It helped spawn Iraqi resistance, including Al Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor to ISIS. Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS didn't exist before our invasion of Iraq in 2003. They are a direct response to our unilateral action in Iraq. This year, by contrast--and what a contrast--we are seeing the participation of key Arab and Muslim States in the region and their active, visible role will be critical to the effectiveness of any international coalition.

Our senior military and civilian leaders recognize, as General Dempsey testified before our committee, that ISIS ``will only be defeated when moderate Arab and Muslim populations in the region reject it.''

The recent international conferences in Jeddah and Paris were a good start, with a number of Arab States declaring their shared commitment-- and this was a public statement--to develop a strategy ``to destroy ISIL wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria,'' and joining in an international pledge to use ``whatever means necessary'' to achieve this goal.

The contrast to the Iraq invasion of 2003 is particularly sharp with regard to ground combat troops. In 2003, almost 200,000 American and British combat troops invaded Iraq. Only after years of relentless ground combat operations were we able to get our troops out. This year, by contrast, the President's policy is that ground combat operations in Iraq and Syria will not be carried out by us, but by Iraqis, Kurds, and Syrians. While the United States and a broad coalition of nations, including Arab and Muslim countries, will support this effort, there is no plan to have American combat forces on the ground.

As General Dempsey explained to the Armed Services Committee, U.S. forces ``are not participating in direct combat. There is no intention for them to do so.'' You wouldn't know that if you read the press coverage of his testimony, so I will repeat it in the wan hope that maybe this time his statement will be covered. General Dempsey said we ``are not participating in direct combat. There is no intention for them to do so.'' General Dempsey was talking about the U.S. Armed Forces.

General Dempsey added a caveat that if circumstances change, he might, for instance, recommend to the President that U.S. advisers be authorized to accompany Iraqi security forces into combat. He was clear that these comments were focused on how our forces could best and most appropriately advise the Iraqis on their combat operations.

Senator Graham asked General Dempsey whether he thought they could defeat ISIL without us being on the ground. The question he asked was: ``If you think they can [defeat ISIL] without us being on the ground, just say yes,'' and General Dempsey responded, ``Yes.''

I saw that in all of one newspaper article across the country.

Our senior military leaders, of course, reserve the right to reconsider their recommendations based on conditions on the ground. I would expect that General Dempsey would say, just as any general would say, we must be free to change a recommendation to the President if circumstances on the ground change. That is a very different statement from what the press put into General Dempsey's mouth when they said General Dempsey suggested we may need U.S. combat forces. The direct answer of General Dempsey was: We have no plan to do it. We believe they can do it without us, and, of course, if conditions change, I must make a different recommendation, or at least might make a different recommendation to the Commander in Chief.

At the end of the day, of course, the President, who is the Commander in Chief, and not the military, will establish policy. Even if conditions change and even if General Dempsey decided to recommend a different role for U.S. ground combat troops, it would just be that, a recommendation.

The struggle against ISIS in Iraq and in Syria will be a long and hard one and we should give it our support. We cannot take the place of Iraqis and Syrians. They must purge the poison they have in their country. These extremist groups, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, must be purged by the people they plague, but we can help these people get rid of this poison.

We are already working with Muslim and Arab countries that are openly uniting against a poisonous strain of Islam. It threatens them even more than it threatens us. This has to be an Iraqi and Syrian fight--an Arab and a Muslim fight--and not a Western fight if it is going to be successful. It will be highly destructive to our efforts to bring about a broad coalition if Congress and the President appear disunited.

We are asking Arab and Muslim countries to openly take on a plague, a cancer, a poison in their midst. That is what we are asking of them. There has been too much behind-the-scenes support, too much quiet support or opposition, too much inconsistency from a number of Arab and Muslim countries. So what the President and Secretary Kerry are doing is not just helping to organize a broad coalition of Western and Muslim countries to go after this stain, this threat that is in their midst, what we are asking them to do is to do it openly so their people see that their governments, and indeed their people, are threatened by this terror poison in their midst. What is critical, and what is so hugely different is this time it will be an international coalition going after terrorists and not just a Western invasion of a Muslim country.

It would be, again, destructive of our efforts to get open support in the Muslim and Arab world for going after these terrorists--this stain called ISIS--if Congress and the President are disunited. So we should give our support to the provision authorizing the training and equipping of vetted, moderate Syrian opposition forces. I hope we do it on a bipartisan basis here, making it then not only bipartisan but also bicameral. What an important statement that will be to the very countries that are seeking to help rid themselves of this cancer.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the Laurium Manor Inn in Houghton County, MI, which was celebrated on September 14, 2014. I extend my heartiest congratulations to Dave and Julie Sprenger, who purchased a vacant historic mansion 25 years ago with the intention of opening a bed and breakfast. The Sprenger's vision resulted in a small business success building on the rich history of

Michigan's Copper Country to attract today's travelers.

Nestled in the heart of the Keweenaw Peninsula's copper country in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and built for Thomas H. Hoatson, Jr., owner of the Calumet and Arizona Mining Company, this mansion started off as a 13,000-square-foot home for the Hoatson family. It remains the largest mansion in the western portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The extravagance of the structure was by far its best known feature. From the embossed elephant leather on the walls, to the grand staircase which spans three floors, to the hand-painted wall mural, stained glass windows, and giant Corinthian columns, the Hoatson mansion was the epitome of opulence. Mr. Hoatson, Jr., a Houghton County native of Scottish decent, made his fortune in the copper mining and banking industries. He spent $50,000 building the mansion at a time when miners were making 25 cents an hour.

Undaunted by the prospect of restoring this enormous and ornate structure, Dave and Julie Sprenger bought the mansion in September of 1989, opened it as a bed and breakfast, listed it as the Laurium Manor Inn on the National Register of Historic Places, and established it as a heritage site within the Keweenaw National Historical Park. This has been no easy task. In addition to the constant renovations and repairs, the remote location of the village of Laurium, the harsh winters of the Upper Peninsula, and the changeable nature of tourism have all challenged the Sprenger's small business. However, throughout all of this, the Sprengers have persevered and continue to provide quality service to the local community and visitors from around the world.

As a senior member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I recognize the important role small businesses play in creating jobs and growing the economy, and this bed and breakfast is no exception. I am delighted to congratulate Dave and Julie Sprenger on the 25th anniversary of their flourishing small business, which contributes to the local economy and enriches historical experiences for tourists and residents alike. I wish them many more decades of success.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, there is almost no measure Congress should consider more carefully than a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States. Such amendments are reserved only for issues that relate to the foundations of our great American experiment.

The value of each American vote is one such issue. Our system of government depends on this basic principle, that every American, whether they are rich or poor, weak or strong, whether they were born in Michigan or Mississippi, has an equal voice in the selection of their elected representatives. Time and again, Congress has amended our Constitution to protect this principle.

But recently, a succession of Supreme Court rulings has unleashed a tide of unlimited and secret special-interest money into our elections. This

unregulated money drowns the voices of the public. It threatens to transform our government of the people, by the people, and for the people into one of campaign donors, by campaign donors, and for campaign donors. That is not democracy, and it is not America.

That is why I support this amendment to the Constitution concerning contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. This amendment would allow Congress to do what we have always done, and what our Founders intended us to do: take action to protect the integrity of our Nation's government and electoral processes.

Posterity vindicates the moments in our Nation's history when Congress simply did what was right. We honor those who voted to ensure that the right to vote cannot be denied based on race, color, previous condition of servitude or gender. We honor those who voted to ensure that a poll tax could never again prohibit an American from voting for their own representatives. I urge my colleagues to act in this tradition, to simply do what is right, and to join me in supporting this proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Tax Audits of Large Partnerships.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine IRS audits of large partnerships, including trends and audit issues identified in a Government Accountability Office report to be released at the hearing. Witnesses will include representatives of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Government Accountability Office. A witness list will be available Tuesday, September 16, 2014.

The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I believe the President will lay out a strong approach against ISIL tonight. That approach will include going after them wherever they are located, including Syria. The President and Secretary Kerry are making every effort to help lead a broadly based coalition which is so critically important to avoid the consequences of a Western go-it-alone approach which was mistakenly used when we invaded Iraq.

This President, like all Presidents, will welcome bipartisan Congressional support, even though he has the authority in this situation to act without explicit Congressional authority. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will lay aside partisan attacks and make a true effort to find a way to take on ISIL in a united manner. A strong bipartisan approach here in the United States will help the President and Secretary Kerry attain the explicit open support of a broad cross section of this world, including Arab and Muslim countries.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this summer marks the 40th year since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the division of the island into Greek and Turkish zones. That division has led to great hardships on both sides of the divide and been a source of some instability in a part of the world--the eastern Mediterranean--that already is far too unstable. It is profoundly in the interests of the United States, our friends and allies in the region, and the Cypriot people, both Greek and Turkish, to resolve this dispute and achieve the goal of a unified Cyprus.

The division of Cyprus has had profoundly negative consequences for its people and the region. Cyprus has been a source of ongoing tension between two important NATO allies, Greece and Turkey. The division has stunted Cyprus economically and politically. Tragically, the line has divided families for four decades. None of this is in the interests of Greece, Turkey, the United States, our allies, or the world. That is why the United States supports the creation of a bizonal, bicommunal federation as envisioned by numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions.

It is unfortunate that, four decades after the island's division, we have yet to achieve that goal. It is long overdue that Cyprus be unified. And there are reasons today to believe that goal is closer. In February, U.N.-sponsored talks between Greek and Turkish leaders restarted after a 2-year halt. They agreed to a roadmap for further negotiations and, importantly, committed to build a positive atmosphere surrounding the talks, including important confidence-building measures designed to help ease 40 years of mistrust. Little over a week ago negotiators met and committed to progress on outstanding issues in advance of their next meeting on September 2.

It is vitally important that negotiators continue to build momentum toward peace and unity on the island because so much is at stake. The discovery of large natural gas reserves off the island's coast promises a newly prosperous future for Cyprus and its people, but it will be far more difficult, if not impossible, to fully capitalize on

that opportunity in the absence of peace and unity.

The United States should continue to work closely with all sides in pursuit of the peaceful reunification of Cyprus that is so long overdue.

Madam President, the world was united in horror at the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine. Subsequent events have only intensified that horror, as we have learned the airliner and its nearly 300 passengers and crew were shot out of the sky by a sophisticated missile and radar system, a system operated from territory that rebels occupy in eastern Ukraine. We do not know if Russia played any direct role in downing the jetliner, but we do know that Russia supplied the equipment, and that it fomented the unlawful insurrection that led to this horrific event.

The world has been unified in its condemnation of this atrocity. There is strengthened support, both in the United States and among our allies, for stronger action to confront Russian aggression, restore stability in Ukraine, reassure our friends in the region, and allow the Ukrainian people a future they choose, rather than one dictated from Moscow. I commend President Obama's action this week to lead a coalition that has further strengthened sanctions against Russia and those who seek to destabilize Ukraine.

But we need to do more. We need to do more because so far, every time President Putin has had the opportunity to veer off his destructive course, he has chosen instead obfuscation, denial and further aggression. The United States has already provided some nonlethal military support to Ukraine. But I believe it is time for us and our allies to intensify that support, and to help Ukraine exercise sovereignty and maintain its territorial integrity while dissuading Russia from further intervening.

The Ukrainian military has achieved important successes in recent weeks against the rebels who would dismantle Ukraine, significantly shrinking rebel-controlled territory. Left on its own, it appears the Ukrainian government will be able to reassert control over eastern Ukraine. But this job has been more difficult because of the backing of Russia for the rebels, including its provision of heavy weapons. It will become all but impossible if Russia decided to cross the border with its own troops. We should take additional steps to help Ukraine reclaim sovereignty in eastern Ukraine and try to deter Russia from crossing the border.

As part of this effort we should provide Ukraine with defensive weapons--such as anti-tank weapons--that can help Ukraine reclaim its territory and deter Russian aggression, without being needlessly provocative to the Russians. These are defensive weapons, not provocative weapons.

There is a clear path out of this violence, violence whose impact we now tragically know is not limited to Ukraine's borders. Russia can end its backing for rebels whose fighting capabilities are wholly dependent on Russian support. Russia can join the world in calling on those rebels to participate in the Ukrainian's government's good-faith efforts to resolve political disputes by peaceful means. Russia can allow Ukraine to exercise sovereignty over territory it lawfully controls.

Russia can choose that path. But we may not know its choice until it is too late. We should provide the military assistance that can help Ukraine defend itself, reclaim its sovereign territory and hopefully deter further Russian intervention.

Madam President, studies have estimated that over one in three American women will face some form of domestic abuse in their lifetime, and that when guns are present during incidents of domestic violence, the risk of homicide escalates over 500 percent.

As the statistics suggest, the combination of domestic violence and firearms can lead to horrific tragedies. Like in May 2014, when Lori Jackson of Oxford, CT filed for a restraining order against her abusive, estranged husband. The court granted her a temporary restraining order while she waited 2 weeks for a hearing to obtain a permanent restraining order. In the meantime, fearful of her husband, Ms. Jackson took her twin 18-month-olds and fled. But before Ms. Jackson could obtain a permanent order, her husband found her, stormed the house where she was staying, fatally shot her and wounded her mother.

This is a tragedy that could have been prevented. The Violence Against Women Act, which Congress first passed in 1994, included a common-sense provision to prevent people subject to a permanent restraining order from buying or possessing a gun. Since 1994, this provision has saved countless lives.

But there is a critical loophole in this law: while people subject to a permanent restraining order are prohibited from having a weapon, this safeguard does not apply to those subject to a temporary restraining order. This loophole left Ms. Jackson, who had obtained a temporary restraining order against her husband and was awaiting a permanent order, perilously vulnerable in the dangerous days immediately after she left her spouse.

It is long past time to close this loophole. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act of 2014. This bill would prevent individuals subject to temporary restraining orders--like Ms. Jackson's husband--from buying or possessing a gun for the duration of that temporary order. It also would expand the legal definition of `intimate partner' to include individuals who are simply dating partners.

But closing the temporary restraining order loophole is just the first step. Sadly, a patchwork of inadequate State and local resources hamstrings the effectiveness of these lifesaving laws. In reality, just issuing a permanent restraining order that legally disqualifies a person from purchasing a firearm does not necessarily mean the person's name will be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check, NICS system. Nor does it mean that law enforcement will be notified of the urgent need to remove firearms from that dangerous person's possession.

That is why I am also a cosponsor of the Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act. This bill would establish new grants to assist States in carrying out policies that, among other things, encourage State and local courts to account for whether a domestic abuser possesses a gun that they may use against their victims and to order the recovery of those guns, when appropriate. The grants created by this bill would provide vital assistance to the law enforcement professionals we trust with the safety of our communities, and would go a long way toward better enforcement of the gun safety laws we already have on the books.

The decision to flee from an abusive partner or spouse is extraordinarily difficult and courageous. Congress should honor the people who have taken this step by passing common-sense legislation to protect those who may need to do it in the future. I urge my colleagues to move quickly to pass these urgently-needed measures.

Would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a unanimous consent request?

May I inquire of the Senator from Pennsylvania how long he intends to speak?

After the Senator from Pennsylvania concludes, I would ask that the Senator from Oklahoma and I be recognized for 20 minutes, evenly divided, to talk about the need to get the Defense authorization bill to the floor, and each one of us would control 10 minutes under this unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today, along with Senator Inhofe--Senator McCain was here before--to express the hope that the Senate will be able to take up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 during our September work period.

In June Senator Inhofe and I came here to urge Senators to begin the process to file amendments to our bill, and many amendments have been filed. We have been working to clear as many amendments as possible in preparation for Senate consideration of our bill. The amendment described just a few moments ago by the Senator from Pennsylvania is the type of amendment that we believe we can clear and would strengthen our bill and strengthen the position of our Nation.

When the Defense authorization bill is brought to the floor, our goal is first to be in a position to offer a package of cleared amendments. Our second goal--probably as important, perhaps more important than our first--is to see if we can identify specific relevant amendments that could be included in an unanimous consent agreement ready to be debated and voted on or, in the alternative, to craft the unanimous consent agreement with a limited number of relevant amendments, leaving it to the managers and the leaders to identify which relevant amendments would be brought to a vote.

Given the small number of days that are left for legislative action in this Congress, we must all--all of us individually and as a body-- pull together if we are going to get our Defense bill completed. In my judgment, the course I have outlined will facilitate that conclusion.

I know there is a backlog of important nominations the Senate must still address, and these nominations have been taking up much of the Senate's time. But we have enacted a national defense authorization act every year for 52 years.

The bill this year--S. 2410--was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the 2nd day of June with a strong bipartisan vote of 25 to 1. It provides critical authorities, funding, assistance, and guidance for our military, for our men and women in uniform and their families, at a time when they face a wide array of threats around the world.

In our national defense authorization bill, we enact authorities and programs that would create important initiatives that would be unnecessarily delayed if we do not adopt this bill.

If we fail to enact this bill, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will not receive many important special pays and bonuses. These include the critical skills retention bonus; enlistment and reenlistment bonuses; bonus and special pays for health professions, including those in critically short wartime specialties; and many other bonus and special pays that enable the military services to shape the force as we draw down that force.

If we fail to enact this bill, we will not be able to slow the growth of military personnel costs and the Department will not be able to use the savings, as planned, to make up for readiness shortfalls that undermine our military's ability to respond to emerging national security crises. The committee-reported bill includes over $1.8 billion in savings in 2015 and over $20 billion in savings over the Future Years Defense Program. If this bill doesn't pass, those savings will not be achieved and the readiness and modernization accounts will be even further depleted.

If we fail to enact this bill, we will risk delaying the implementation of programs to address the mental health of our Armed Forces by developing a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide and attempted suicide data for members of the National Guard and Reserves. Our Presiding Officer is very active in that particular area, in trying to address the suicide problems we have in our Armed Forces.

If we fail to enact this bill, we will delay a much needed reorganization of the Department's prisoner of war/missing in action community to enable the Department to more effectively accomplish its mission of accounting for POWs and MIAs.

If we fail to enact this bill, school districts all over the United States that rely on our supplemental impact aid to help them educate military children will no longer receive that money.

If we fail to enact this bill, we are unlikely to authorize the National Commission on the Future of the Army--a critical step to enable the Army to ensure that its forces--including its Active-Duty, Reserves, and Army National Guard components--are properly structured and supported to meet current and future threats.

If we fail to enact this bill, no new military construction projects will be authorized for fiscal year 2015 and our Armed Forces will too often continue to live, train, and work in substandard facilities.

Previous years' national defense authorization acts have been strengthened and enhanced through a debate on the Senate floor, and that includes the opportunity for Members to offer amendments. Debating and enacting those authorizations are critical not only to our national security but to ensure that our Nation keeps its sacred vow to provide for our armed servicemembers and their families.

Senator Inhofe and I will do our part, but we urge our colleagues to continue to file amendments colleagues would like to see in the bill, and we will do our best to clear them. We will also do our utmost to draft a unanimous consent agreement for consideration by our leadership that would provide for some contested relevant amendments so that we can show our leaders we can deal with this bill in a day or two.

We will do all that we can, but we need 98 other Senators to help us. So we urge our colleagues, please continue to bring amendments to us. Please help us craft a unanimous consent agreement that would allow for a reasonable number of contested relevant amendments to be debated and voted on. This is the best way we are going to be able to persuade our leaders and our colleagues that we can bring the bill to the floor, have a reasonable period for debate, dispose of at least some relevant amendments, and pass the critically needed National Defense Authorization Act.

Our troops and their families deserve maximum effort on the part of all of us. I hope that will be forthcoming so we will not miss in the 53rd year a passage of a bill that is so critical to our national security.

Before I yield, I wish to thank my good friend from Oklahoma, our ranking member, who has worked so closely with me. Our staffs worked so hard on this bill. Together, as partners, we have been able to bring this bill to the floor. I thank him for the very strong leadership he has shown in the security area and on this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, earlier today I, along with Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Jack Reed, introduced the No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act. Our bill will put a stop to companies that renounce their U.S. citizenship but come back to try to seek taxpayer funded government contracts. There is an existing law on the books that is supposed to ban Federal contracts with inverted corporations, but just like with the tax code, after about a decade of lawyers looking for loopholes in the law, a number of corporations have found them. This bill would bring that ban up-to-date.

Over the last few months, there has been a growing rush of U.S. corporations seeking to swear off their U.S. citizenship and move their mailboxes, for tax purposes, to a low-tax jurisdiction. I don't think that is right, and it is time we put a stop to it, which we can do by passing the Stop Corporate Inversions Act I introduced 2 months ago with 22 cosponsors.

Most Americans agree with us that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used for contracts with companies that move their addresses abroad to dodge U.S. laws. And because of that, Congress has passed a series of restrictions on contracting with inverted corporations over the last decade. We passed one in 2002, and another in 2006 and 2007. Since fiscal year 2008, a government-wide provision has been included in every annual appropriations bill banning contracts with inverted corporations.

Our bill would strengthen that ban by closing a number of loopholes in the current law. Those loopholes have allowed some inverted corporations to continue collecting revenue from American taxpayers, while at the same time, shifting their tax burden onto those same American taxpayers. Our bill also makes the existing ban, which has been included in annual appropriations bills, permanent.

Some may say that the real reason for inversions is that our tax rate is too high. It is true the top corporate rate is 35 percent. But the effective tax rate--what corporations really pay--is about 12 percent. When companies can go to places like Ireland or the Caribbean and negotiate sweetheart deals to pay little or no taxes, there will always be tax incentives for companies to abandon their country instead of paying their tax bill, no matter what our tax rate is.

Some may say that we should wait for tax reform to address this issue. There are two reasons why we shouldn't. First, if it happens at all, tax reform is months or years away; these inversions are happening now. Second, this is a bill about contracting. This bill doesn't amend the tax code. I expect it will be referred to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, not to the Finance Committee. So even Senators who believe that fixing the tax inversions problem should wait until comprehensive tax reform should be able to support this bill.

In the past, in similar circumstances, Congress has chosen to act-- overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion. This should not be a partisan

issue. This is about fairness. It is simply unfair to businesses who don't invert to have to compete with companies that do invert. This is about putting American families who work hard and pay their share. We shouldn't sacrifice the interests of those families. We shouldn't ask them to send their hard-earned tax dollars to contractors who skip out on their tax obligations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward.

Mr. President, earlier today I, along with Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Jack Reed, introduced the No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act. Our bill will put a stop to companies that renounce their U.S. citizenship but come back to try to seek taxpayer funded government contracts. There is an existing law on the books that is supposed to ban Federal contracts with inverted corporations, but just like with the tax code, after about a decade of lawyers looking for loopholes in the law, a number of corporations have found them. This bill would bring that ban up-to-date.

Over the last few months, there has been a growing rush of U.S. corporations seeking to swear off their U.S. citizenship and move their mailboxes, for tax purposes, to a low-tax jurisdiction. I don't think that is right, and it is time we put a stop to it, which we can do by passing the Stop Corporate Inversions Act I introduced 2 months ago with 22 cosponsors.

Most Americans agree with us that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used for contracts with companies that move their addresses abroad to dodge U.S. laws. And because of that, Congress has passed a series of restrictions on contracting with inverted corporations over the last decade. We passed one in 2002, and another in 2006 and 2007. Since fiscal year 2008, a government-wide provision has been included in every annual appropriations bill banning contracts with inverted corporations.

Our bill would strengthen that ban by closing a number of loopholes in the current law. Those loopholes have allowed some inverted corporations to continue collecting revenue from American taxpayers, while at the same time, shifting their tax burden onto those same American taxpayers. Our bill also makes the existing ban, which has been included in annual appropriations bills, permanent.

Some may say that the real reason for inversions is that our tax rate is too high. It is true the top corporate rate is 35 percent. But the effective tax rate--what corporations really pay--is about 12 percent. When companies can go to places like Ireland or the Caribbean and negotiate sweetheart deals to pay little or no taxes, there will always be tax incentives for companies to abandon their country instead of paying their tax bill, no matter what our tax rate is.

Some may say that we should wait for tax reform to address this issue. There are two reasons why we shouldn't. First, if it happens at all, tax reform is months or years away; these inversions are happening now. Second, this is a bill about contracting. This bill doesn't amend the tax code. I expect it will be referred to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, not to the Finance Committee. So even Senators who believe that fixing the tax inversions problem should wait until comprehensive tax reform should be able to support this bill.

In the past, in similar circumstances, Congress has chosen to act-- overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion. This should not be a partisan

issue. This is about fairness. It is simply unfair to businesses who don't invert to have to compete with companies that do invert. This is about putting American families who work hard and pay their share. We shouldn't sacrifice the interests of those families. We shouldn't ask them to send their hard-earned tax dollars to contractors who skip out on their tax obligations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.