Floor Statements

Mr. President, along with 16 cosponsors, I have introduced and am introducing today the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014.

This legislation is designed to address a loophole which, unless we close it, will be used to unleash a flood of corporate tax avoidance that threatens to shove billions of dollars in tax burden from profitable multinational corporations onto the backs of their American competitors and other American taxpayers.

The issue we seek to address is known technically as corporate inversion. The details of inversion sound complex, but the principle is not. Inversion means avoiding potentially billions of dollars of U.S. taxes by changing a corporation's address for tax purposes to an offshore location. What we have is a tax avoidance scheme, an enormous loophole that allows companies to avoid billions in taxes without any significant change in where they operate, where their profits are generated, or where the location is of the executives who manage and control these corporations.

A recent prominent example involves Pfizer, a U.S. drug company, and AstroZeneca, a U.K.-based company. This proposed corporate takeover, which Pfizer makes abundantly clear is all about avoiding U.S. taxes, has gotten a lot of attention, and for good reason. It would cost the United States about $1 billion a year in tax revenue. But this is not just about two companies. This is not just about one merger, even a merger that could shove billions of dollars of tax burden on other U.S. taxpayers. The Pfizer-AstroZeneca deal is the latest example of abusive inversion deals. You cannot pick up a newspaper's business section these days without reading about what Reuters calls ``a wave of tax- driven overseas deal-making.'' Some companies that believe they are meeting their tax obligations are under competitive pressure to invert. It is clear dozens, perhaps scores, of companies are preparing to file their change-of-address cards and in doing so avoid billions in U.S. taxes. That burden doesn't just go away. Either our remaining constituents must pick up the tab or the loss of Treasury revenue adds to the Federal deficit.

We tightened the rules regarding inversion schemes in 2004, and we did so promptly and on a bipartisan basis, but recent events show an enormous loophole remains, and so our bill seeks to address that loophole, and I hope once again we can do so promptly and on a bipartisan basis.

Essentially the problem we have today is that a U.S.-based multinational can file a change-of-address card with the IRS simply by acquiring an offshore company that is much smaller than the U.S. company. Our bill would ensure that any inversion would meet a much more stringent test.

Under current law, companies can pull off an inversion with a fraction of their stock, just over 20 percent, in the hands of the new stockholders overseas. Our bill would raise that threshold to 50 percent or more. In addition, it would stop tax-avoiding inversions in cases where management and control remain in the United States.

President Obama's 2014 budget included a similar proposal which one expert told the New York Times ``essentially eliminates inversions as we know them.''

Our bill provides for a 2-year moratorium of tax avoidance through the use of inversions. Why a 2-year moratorium? This is in response to a number of our colleagues who say this is an issue which should wait for comprehensive tax reform. We all believe in comprehensive tax reform--or most of us do--but it is going to take time and it is uncertain. These corporate inversions represent an immediate threat. Our Treasury is bleeding from these inversions and from other loopholes which corporations use to avoid paying taxes. This bill is first aid for the Tax Code. A 2-year moratorium on inversions that do not meet our tougher standard stops the bleeding while we debate the comprehensive tax reform that most of us believe is desirable.

As of this moment, however, there is no comprehensive tax reform legislation pending in either Chamber of Congress. There is no debate scheduled.

There is, in fact, not a single comprehensive tax reform proposal that has been formally introduced as legislation. That is not because no one in Congress cares about tax reform; nearly everybody does. But broadly reforming taxes is a complicated and time-consuming process.

But we simply cannot wait. Multinationals are exploiting this loophole today. Meanwhile, hard-working American taxpayers and small business owners and even large corporations that have to compete with the tax avoiders but believe that inversion is wrong for their companies and for America see their tax burden rise while our national debt grows. How do we look them in the eye and say, ``We had a way to halt this gimmick, but we decided to wait for comprehensive reform that may or may not ever materialize?''

This is similar to what Congress did on a bipartisan basis a decade ago. Then Senators Baucus and Grassley jointly declared they were working on legislation to stop abusive tax inversions. The bill, along with Chairman Wyden's announcement 2 weeks ago, should make clear to companies that considering tax inversion is now a mistake, because they are now on notice that it is not going to gain anything if a bill that prohibits tax avoidance through tax inversion passes, because the chairman of the Finance Committee has made it clear such a bill is going to be effective as of May 8 of this year, regardless of when the bill passes.

So companies are on notice. There is no use rushing to the door to invert, or leaving the country to invert. It won't do them any good if the Finance Committee chairman has his way with either of these bills or other bills that set an appropriate date, such as May 8, to pass the Congress.

These multinational companies benefit from the safety and security the U.S. Government provides. Our troops protect them. Our intellectual property rights protections allow them to profit from their innovation. They benefit from federally funded research. They claim tax subsidies for their research and development. They raise capital in U.S. securities markets that are the envy of the world, thanks to the rule of law this government protects.

In the last 4 years, one of the companies at the center of this debate, Pfizer, received more than $4.4 billion in taxpayer money for federal contracts. Last month the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention awarded Pfizer a $1.1 billion contract.

Yet that company and others are now poised to shortchange Uncle Sam by billions of dollars simply by changing their address for tax purposes. I am sure most of our constituents wish they could do that. Michigan taxpayers cannot reduce their tax bill with the stroke of a pen. Michigan small businesses cannot pretend they are based offshore for tax purposes. There is no pretense that any of these corporate inversions make sense from any standpoint other than avoiding U.S. taxes. That is their motivation and these companies aren't shy about saying so. They will continue to operate in the United States. The executives who manage them will continue to live and work in the United States. They will live under the umbrella of protection that our men and women in uniform provide, at the same time that we are cutting support to those same men and women because of the deficit these tax avoidance schemes have helped to create.

Few even try to defend these inversions on principle. They are simply tax avoidance. Even the corporate executives who engineer them make little pretense as to any other purpose. So let us reform the Tax Code, yes. But while we craft and debate that reform, let us stop these transactions that add massively to our deficit and to the burden America's working families and small businesses must carry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Steven Croley to be the next General Counsel at the Department of Energy. Nominated in August 2013, Dr. Croley has served the Obama administration since 2010, including as Deputy Assistant to the President, Deputy White House Counsel, and Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy at the Domestic Policy Council. A native of DeWitt, MI, Dr. Croley earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan, where he later went on to teach at the law school after obtaining his juris doctor from Yale Law School and a Ph.D. from Princeton. At the University of Michigan, Dr. Croley was named the Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law and served as the law school's associate dean for academic affairs, teaching and publishing in the areas of administrative law, civil procedure, regulations, and other areas. He has also served as a special assistant to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and clerked for Judge Stephen Williams at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. An often-cited authority on regulatory policy and administrative law, he is a co-author of the book ``What Agencies Do: The Fourth Branch in Operation,'' scheduled to be published soon. I am confident his work on regulatory law, administrative procedure, rulemaking, and litigation experience will serve as a constructive framework for his efforts at the Department of Energy. With the support and sacrifice of his family--wife Bridget Mary McCormack, who is currently serving as a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and four children, Jack, Anna, Harry, and Matt--Dr. Croley will make valuable contributions to the work of the Department and the Nation.

Mr. President, I am disappointed today that we were unable to

move forward on the Energy Savings and Industrial Competiveness Act of 2014, S. 2262. This legislation, also referred to as the energy efficiency bill, had substantial public support and included several strong bipartisan compromises. It is a pretty sad state of affairs that we were unable to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster of S. 2262. Not moving forward on this bill is irresponsible and inhibits our economy's growth.

Through a deficit neutral framework, the energy efficiency bill would have provided several low-cost tools to promote the adoption of energy efficient technologies. It supported the use of such technologies in residential and commercial buildings, encouraged stronger coordination between the private sector and the Federal Government through the research, development and commercialization of energy efficient technologies, and required that the nation's largest consumer of energy, the Federal Government, implement energy-saving techniques.

This legislation would have been good for Michigan and the Nation. Michigan is the epicenter of America's manufacturing sector and has the potential to help spearhead the development of energy efficient technologies. With a highly skilled workforce and a robust base of manufacturers specializing in energy efficient products, Michigan is well-positioned to meet the demands of an evolving energy efficient economy. This bill could have provided job creation opportunities for energy efficiency contractors, manufacturers, and service companies.

A comprehensive energy policy must balance the demands of providing affordable and reliable energy with environmental protection. Energy efficiency is one of the most successful tools that will allow us to achieve that balance. Using less energy not only reduces harmful emissions, but also helps us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and enhance our energy security. This bill had the potential to create jobs, increase our country's productivity, and incentivize industry to innovate and develop competitive technologies that strengthen our economy.

The Senate has not voted on energy legislation since 2007 and it is unfortunate that we have squandered another opportunity to help advance our nation's economy and increase our energy security. This was commonsense legislation that not only made economic sense for the American public, but strong environmental sense.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. President, I am truly delighted that my colleagues from Missouri, Senators McCaskill and Blunt, have today introduced legislation to name Washington, DC's Union Station after our 33rd President Harry Truman, legislation of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

It is long overdue that we honor President Truman in this way. While much, in life and in politics, loses its luster as time passes, the Truman Presidency has only grown in stature and historical significance over the decades. There are many reasons for this, but let me focus on just a few.

First, history has shown the significance and wisdom of Truman's leadership in forging America's post-war foreign policy consensus. Truman and America understood the hard lesson of World War II: that a failure to engage in the world could have tragic consequences for our Nation, for our friends and allies, and for humanity. He understood the importance to the free world of helping to rebuild our chief enemies in that war, Germany and Japan. He understood the importance of working across party lines to build and maintain a consensus for these policies so that they did not depend on any one President or party to continue.

We in Michigan are especially proud of the role that our Senator Vandenberg, a Republican, played in helping to build this consensus along with a Democratic President. Their hard work resulted in one of our Nation's most lasting and important achievements, ensuring America's enduring role in leading a rising tide of freedom around the world.

A second aspect of the Truman legacy is his commitment to open, ethical and responsive government. He achieved public notice in the Senate as chairman of a committee tasked with fighting fraud and waste in defense contracting during World War II. He was among the earliest Washington politicians to call for lobbying reform. Ever since Truman's time, any government official who has sought to deflect responsibility or accountability in that time-honored political tradition of buck- passing has suffered in comparison to the Truman policy that ``The Buck Stops Here.''

Lastly, I will mention this: Harry Truman was a simple man. He was regularly described as ``plain''--and to his detractors, this was no compliment--but he wore it as a badge of honor. He understood that this Nation was built on the hard work, dedication and commitment of ordinary working people--because he came from ordinary working people. He talked straight, often bluntly. He demonstrated that one could rise to the highest office in the land based not on clever rhetoric or by currying favor, but by charting the best course for our Nation and clearly explaining that course to the people we all serve. He proved that wisdom is in the power of our ideas--nothing more and nothing less.

It was a train that carried Harry Truman on his ``Give 'em Hell, Harry!'' whistle-stop tour during the 1948 campaign. It was from a train that he held up that famous headline--``Dewey Defeats Truman''-- that serves to this day as a rallying cry for the underdog. He rode the train from Union Station a lot, going home to be with his beloved wife Bess. So naming the train station of our Nation's capital, within sight of the Capitol where he served so well, is a fitting tribute.

I join my Missouri colleagues in urging the Senate to adopt this legislation and pay due honor to President Harry Truman.

Mr. President, I am truly delighted that my colleagues from Missouri, Senators McCaskill and Blunt, have today introduced legislation to name Washington, DC's Union Station after our 33rd President Harry Truman, legislation of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

It is long overdue that we honor President Truman in this way. While much, in life and in politics, loses its luster as time passes, the Truman Presidency has only grown in stature and historical significance over the decades. There are many reasons for this, but let me focus on just a few.

First, history has shown the significance and wisdom of Truman's leadership in forging America's post-war foreign policy consensus. Truman and America understood the hard lesson of World War II: that a failure to engage in the world could have tragic consequences for our Nation, for our friends and allies, and for humanity. He understood the importance to the free world of helping to rebuild our chief enemies in that war, Germany and Japan. He understood the importance of working across party lines to build and maintain a consensus for these policies so that they did not depend on any one President or party to continue.

We in Michigan are especially proud of the role that our Senator Vandenberg, a Republican, played in helping to build this consensus along with a Democratic President. Their hard work resulted in one of our Nation's most lasting and important achievements, ensuring America's enduring role in leading a rising tide of freedom around the world.

A second aspect of the Truman legacy is his commitment to open, ethical and responsive government. He achieved public notice in the Senate as chairman of a committee tasked with fighting fraud and waste in defense contracting during World War II. He was among the earliest Washington politicians to call for lobbying reform. Ever since Truman's time, any government official who has sought to deflect responsibility or accountability in that time-honored political tradition of buck- passing has suffered in comparison to the Truman policy that ``The Buck Stops Here.''

Lastly, I will mention this: Harry Truman was a simple man. He was regularly described as ``plain''--and to his detractors, this was no compliment--but he wore it as a badge of honor. He understood that this Nation was built on the hard work, dedication and commitment of ordinary working people--because he came from ordinary working people. He talked straight, often bluntly. He demonstrated that one could rise to the highest office in the land based not on clever rhetoric or by currying favor, but by charting the best course for our Nation and clearly explaining that course to the people we all serve. He proved that wisdom is in the power of our ideas--nothing more and nothing less.

It was a train that carried Harry Truman on his ``Give 'em Hell, Harry!'' whistle-stop tour during the 1948 campaign. It was from a train that he held up that famous headline--``Dewey Defeats Truman''-- that serves to this day as a rallying cry for the underdog. He rode the train from Union Station a lot, going home to be with his beloved wife Bess. So naming the train station of our Nation's capital, within sight of the Capitol where he served so well, is a fitting tribute.

I join my Missouri colleagues in urging the Senate to adopt this legislation and pay due honor to President Harry Truman.

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, ``Online Advertising and Hidden Hazards to Consumer Security and Data Privacy.'' The Subcommittee will be examining consumer security and data privacy in the online advertising industry, an investigation led by Senator McCain. Specifically, the Subcommittee is investigating data collection processes and security vulnerabilities that have inflicted significant costs on Internet users and American businesses. Witnesses will include representatives of the online advertising industry and an online self- regulatory organization, an online advertising expert, as well as a representative from the Federal Trade Commission. A witness list will be available Monday, May 12, 2014.

The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, May 15, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 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, listening to your doctor is just common sense. That is why it is important for Congress to take note that this April, the American College of Physicians, ACP, our Nation's largest medical-specialty organization and second largest physician group, released an important diagnosis: that our Nation is trapped in an epidemic of gun violence. Fortunately, it also includes a treatment: a set of policy positions and recommendations to reduce gun violence in our country.

The ACP report begins with recognition that ``firearm violence is not only a criminal justice issue but also a public health threat.'' The statistics are undeniable: Guns kill over 32,000 individuals in our Nation every year--about 88 lives stolen, every day. But those are only the fatal shootings; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have estimated that more than 73,000 nonfatal firearm injuries occur in the United States every year. And what is a ``nonfatal'' injury? Anything from a bullet grazing someone's shoulder, to a domestic abuser taking aim at a spouse's heart and striking the arm, to a child accidentally shooting him or herself in the stomach and barely surviving. ``Nonfatal'' gun injuries may evade the first sad statistic, but they can be devastating all the same. These statistics also belie the collateral damage the families, friends and communities shattered by a pull of the trigger.

The ACP report surveyed the highly trained and clinically minded internists whom we entrust with our health and well-being, along with that of our families, children and communities. Direct experience with the problem was widespread, with 63 percent of surveyed internists reporting having had patients who were injured or given fatal wounds by a gun. Other results showed overwhelming consensus: that 85 percent of surveyed internists believe firearm injuries are a public health issue; 95 percent support mandatory background checks on all firearm purchases; 86 percent support a ban on military-style assault weapons; 85 percent support a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines; and 86 percent support the creation of requirements that all firearms include child-proof safety features. 76 percent of respondents agreed that gun safety legislation would ``help to reduce the risk for gun related injuries or deaths.''

Responding to this consensus, the ACP report includes several recommendations to reduce gun violence in our society. It argues that all gun sales should be ``subject to satisfactory completion of a criminal background check,'' and supports enactment of ``a universal background check system to keep guns out of the hands'' of dangerous individuals. Fortunately, there is legislation pending in this Congress that would do just that.

It also supports the ``enactment of legislation to ban the sale and manufacture for civilian use of firearms that have features designed to increase their rapid killing capacity (often called assault weapons.')'' Legislation pending in this Congress would also accomplish that goal.

In addition, the report argues for ``strong penalties and criminal prosecution for those who sell firearms illegally and those who legally purchase firearms for those who are banned from possession of them''-- so called ``straw'' purchases. And yes, there is legislation pending in this Congress to do that too.

Mr. President, our Nation's medical community agrees with our law enforcement community, and the 90 percent of Americans who support sensible gun safety reforms. I urge my colleagues to listen to these important voices and to pass the commonsense pieces of legislation already pending before this body. The cost of inaction is just too high.

Mr. President, Senator Inhofe and I are introducing, by request, the administration's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015. As is the case with any bill that is introduced by request, we introduce this bill for the purpose of placing the administration's proposals before Congress and the public without expressing our own views on the substance of these proposals. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, we look forward to giving the administration's requested legislation our most careful review and thoughtful consideration.

Mr. President, I just returned from a trip to Afghanistan and Ukraine where I reviewed the security situation in each country as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

In each country, I met with military leaders and with civilian leaders and representatives of civilian society. The overwhelming impression I came away with is that American leadership remains critical, that others who are struggling for democracy and freedom see us as an essential friend and ally, and support for those who share those values must remain a cornerstone of our foreign policy and as essential to our own security.

In Afghanistan, I met with senior leaders of both our military and the Afghan military, including General Dunford, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces, and Afghan Minister of Defense Mohammedi. They reported that the transition of security responsibility to the Afghanistan National Security Forces--ANSF--has gone even better than we had hoped, with no significant loss of security in the country despite the withdrawal of tens of thousands of American and coalition troops. U.S. and Afghan leaders alike expressed satisfaction with the ability of the newly built and much larger ANSF to successfully protect the Afghan people, to defeat Taliban forces in combat, and to secure a series of major public events, culminating in the April 5 Afghan presidential election.

Our military commanders emphasized that while these gains reflect the growing confidence of the Afghan security forces in their ability to provide security to the Afghan people, the challenge ahead is to put in place the final pieces needed to make the progress of the last decade sustainable. This includes logistics, maintenance, airlift, and building the institutions of the Afghan Army and police. Fundamental to any long-term effort on our part in Afghanistan will be the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement as soon as possible with a new Afghan president. While President Karzai remains unreliable and his rhetoric offensive, all the major Afghan presidential candidates, including the two winners of the first round, support what we have done so far and look forward to signing the BSA promptly if elected.

In addition to meeting with the three leading presidential candidates, I met with Afghan government officials and with several groups of representatives of Afghan civil society. The Afghans I met with came from different backgrounds and spoke with different voices, but they shared a common message of pride in the achievement of their country as it has rebuilt and recovered from the devastation of decades of civil war and Taliban rule. They pointed to the revival of Afghanistan's education and health systems, the dramatic improvement in the role of women in the country, and the new life that the last 10 years have brought to the country's economy.

They also spoke of their frustration with the exceedingly negative picture of events in Afghanistan depicted in the U.S. press. A leading national paper writes about a ``deepening resentment'' of the American presence and a ``growing alienation'' between Afghanistan and the United States. But the Afghans I met and large majorities of Afghans, according to public opinion polls, are grateful for the sacrifices we have made on their behalf and are convinced they can continue to transform their country with our continued support. Their polls show that 64 percent of the Afgan people believe there has been significant progress in security. U.S. polls show the opposite, the product of an unbalanced, negative view in our media.

The Afghans I met spoke with pride of the election they held on April 5, in which 7 million Afghans braved threats and violence to get to the polls, voting at a higher rate than we achieve in our own elections. According to preliminary counts, more than 35 percent of the voters were women. This record vote was the culmination of a campaign in which the leading candidates held huge rallies, attended by tens of thousands of Afghans all over the country--including in areas that much of our press reports are controlled by the Taliban. All of the security for these events, and for the vote itself, was provided by Afghan forces. And every Afghan I spoke with said that he--or she--feels more secure today than a few years ago, in part because Afghan forces are providing security in Afghan cities and towns.

Although the vote was divided among a number of candidates and a run- off between Dr. Abdullah and Dr. Ghani will occur, Afghans say the act of voting itself sent a message that Afghans reject the Taliban and what it stands for. Our intelligence sources indicate that the Taliban leadership is concerned by its inability to disrupt the election and prevent Afghans from getting to the polls.

So, far from what we may read in much of our press, the Afghan people conveyed to me their optimism regarding their country's significant progress, their desire for democracy, and their gratitude for the assistance of the United States over the past decade.

In Ukraine, I met with Acting President Turchinov, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, Defense Minister Koval, National Security and Defense Council Head Parubiy, and numerous other government officials, activists, and participants in the political process. Ukrainians faced down the heavily-armed security forces of a corrupt, repressive regime on the Maidan--their Independence Square--while they themselves armed with little more than rocks, tires, and sandbags. Now they face an even greater challenge in the form of tens of thousands of Russian troops massed on their borders. Already, the Russians have annexed Crimea and Russian Special Operations forces have organized sympathizers to occupy buildings in a number of Eastern Ukrainian cities and towns in an effort to disrupt and destabilize the government, make an election on May 25 difficult to organize, and establish a basis for Russian occupation or a Russian-oriented breakaway State.

In the face of these challenges, the Ukrainians I met expressed gratitude for the solidarity and support our country has shown through the dark days of the Yanukovich regime and into the challenges they face today. They expressed their support for our values and their strong desire to be a part of the democratic West, rather than the authoritarian sphere of Putin's Russia and its allies. And they asked for our support in their effort to stabilize their country, fend off the Russian challenge, and hold free and fair elections as scheduled.

The Ukrainian people earned our support when they put their lives on the line at the Maidan and turned to face the Russian threat with both toughness and restraint. We should stand with the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people because they share our democratic values, and because Russia's effort to dismember their country through the threat of force, if allowed to succeed, could undermine decades of stability and a peaceful, democratic, and united Europe.

Ukrainians understand there will not be American ``boots on the ground'' in their country. But there are a number of important steps we can take to support the Ukrainians in their struggle.

First, we must expedite the aid we have already promised them-- including both financial assistance and nonlethal military equipment-- to make sure it arrives as quickly as possible.

Second, we should provide additional support, including body armor and fuel, that the Ukrainians need to protect themselves. We should provide the Ukrainians with firearms and ammunition if they need them-- but it appears that at this point they do not.

Third, we should make more robust use of the powers established in Executive order 13661, which authorizes sanctions against the Russian financial, energy, metals, mining, engineering, and defense sectors, to ensure that the Putin regime pays a heavy price for its illegal actions. President Obama's action to sanction more wealthy individuals in Putin's circle, as well as businesses they own, is a wise one, but we can do more.

Fourth, we should ensure that Russian banks are subject to the significant tax penalties imposed on noncompliant banks by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, the antitax evasion law set to take effect in July. Russian banks and financial institutions that fail to register with the Internal Revenue Service and obtain the required identification number by July 1 of this year will be noncompliant with FATCA and become subject to a 30-percent withholding tax on any U.S. investment earnings. We should not negotiate with either Russia or certain Russian banks on measures to provide relief from FATCA's sanctions until Russia honors its diplomatic commitments and takes steps to diffuse tensions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, including by withdrawing Russian troops from the border region.

Finally, we should use the existing authorities to take on Russia's manipulation of energy prices and supplies which it has used to coerce not only Ukraine but also many of its neighbors. To be most effective, these actions should be taken in close coordination with our friends and allies in Europe, many of whom are directly affected by Russia's abuses and threatened by its actions. We must take concrete steps toward substituting energy from other sources for the countries that would be impacted by a reduction of Russian energy. We must actively become involved in energy development, diversification, and conservation, even if it means paying higher prices for fuel, to break Russia's iron grip on this market, and to prevent future acts of attempted political extortion by Russia from being effective.

The people of Ukraine are proud of their fight for freedom at the Maidan, as are the people of Afghanistan of the courage they showed, when they voted in record numbers to reject the Taliban in their April 5 election. Both countries are struggling for values that we, as a Nation, have always shared. They both deserve our support, and we should continue to give it to them.

Mr. President, we should raise the minimum wage.

It is indisputable that the minimum wage now lags far behind the cost of living. We last acted to raise the minimum wage in 2009, when we set the current rate of $7.25 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that is just $6.62 in current dollars. And it is far lower than the rate in 1980, which was nearly $9 an hour when adjusted for inflation.

The CBO estimates that nearly 1 million Americans would rise from poverty under this legislation. And earlier this year, economists who surveyed the empirical research on this subject estimated that the impact would be far greater: roughly 4.6 million people immediately lifted above the poverty line, and 6.8 million over time.

And it is indisputable that failure to raise the minimum wage--among the lowest in the developed world--has contributed to growing income inequality. Here is what The Economist, a generally conservative publication, said in December:

Skepticism about the merits of minimum wages remains this

newspaper's starting-point. But as income inequality widens

and workers' share of national income shrinks, the case for

action to help the low-paid grows.

The Economist and others recognize that we should consider this issue in the context of a large issue: Increasingly, working hard is not the path it used to be to get ahead in this country. Increasingly, income goes not to working families, but to investors, to the owners of capital. The share of our national income that flows to those who work for a living has, by every measure, fallen. That is enormously troubling. This is a Nation built on the idea that hard work is the path to success, the path to a better future for our families. That breakdown of the relationship between one's labor and one's prosperity threatens to fracture the understandings that have fed our growth and success for more than two centuries.

None of the statements I have made so far are particularly controversial; they represent mainstream economic thinking. Republicans so far have one response to these facts: They say raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs. They cite this as an unassailable fact. But this position is disproved by history, and refuted by economists. When the University of Chicago surveyed leading economists last year,

they said by a four-to-one margin that the benefits of a minimum wage increase outweighed the potential costs.

Republicans have opposed minimum wage increases at any time, under any economic circumstances. Republicans are wedded to a policy of tax cuts for the wealthy, reduced protections for workers and consumers and reduced protection for the environment as the answer to any and all economic problems. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, as are income and wealth for the most fortunate Americans. But for average working families, the last 30 years have been an exercise in running to stand still, or even losing ground.

We can and must raise the minimum wage. Empirical evidence supports it, and fairness demands it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today we will decide whether to begin debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act. I am an original cosponsor of this bill, I strongly support it and the ideals that motivate it, and I hope that someday we can pass this legislation. But today's vote is not on final passage. It is not even a vote on whether to end debate on this measure. It is a vote on whether to begin the debate. Those who vote against cloture on this motion to proceed are not just saying they oppose equal pay for women; they are saying they do not even want to discuss it.

But a refusal to debate this measure will not make this issue go away. The fact remains that in our country today, women make 77 cents for every dollar men earn. Some of our Republican colleagues suggest there's nothing we can do about it.

As a Democrat I believe that our prosperity rests on a principle--the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should have a fair shot to provide for your family, your future and your children's future. The promise of that better future is part of what gets us up every morning, gets us on the bus or in the car, and gets us to the office or the shop or the factory floor. It is the promise that our work will be rewarded.

The obvious and persistent pay gap between men and women does violence to that promise. Under current conditions, the message we send to women is this: ``Work hard, play by the rules, and you'll get three quarters for every dollar's worth of work you do.'' Democrats believe that is unfair--unfair to the women it shortchanges and to the families they support. And we believe that even those of us who are not working women lose something when we do not live up to the principles of fairness and opportunity that give all of us hope for that better future.

And we Democrats want to do something about it. When you think about it, what we want to do should not be that controversial. Here is all this bill does: It requires employers to ensure that when men and women are paid differently, that the difference is related to factors such as education, training and experience, and not merely based on gender; and it strengthens protections against retaliation by employers for women who file discrimination complaints.

Surely we can all agree that pay differences should be limited to factors that truly reflect qualification and performance, and not determined by gender. Surely we can all agree that when an employee believes she or he is being treated unfairly, or that their employer has violated the law, they have the right to seek redress without fear of retribution.

Those who care about the 60 percent of American households that depend partly or entirely on a woman's income should support this bill. Those who care about the 6.9 million women trying to raise a family on what is now three-quarters of what they have worked for should support this bill. Those who care about making this a society that lives up to our professed goals of equal opportunity should support this bill.

Mr. President, public service is a noble calling. The work done by dedicated and hardworking government employees benefits countless Americans from coast to coast and many across my home State of Michigan. Indeed, there are many people who work tirelessly day after day to make sure the services we all rely on are there when we need them most. That is why it is no exaggeration to say that diligent and long-serving workers like Ann Young form the backbone of our great Nation. And, I am delighted to honor Ann, who recently retired after more than 40 years of Federal service.

Ann Young began her career in the Federal Government in 1973 with the Animal and Plant Inspection Service within the Department of Agriculture and ended up staying in Federal health service for more than four decades. Thousands of hardworking Michigan farmers rely on the expertise and services provided by the Department of Agriculture, many of those families reside in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Throughout her career, Ann and her colleagues have been there for these families, always ready to lend a hand and do what is needed. Her work with the U.S. Forest Service and in the area of rural development has truly made a difference.

Ann has dedicated her professional life to helping others. She follows in a long and unbroken line of workers who have done the same. She will be missed by those in the Upper Peninsula who have relied on her work for so many years. And, she will be missed by her colleagues who have benefitted from her wisdom and insight. She can now take a well-deserved break, enjoy life and spend more time with the people she holds dear. She is certainly in the perfect place to do it--The Upper Peninsula of Michigan, home to extraordinary natural beauty.

I am delighted to recognize the work of Ann Young and wish her the best as she begins the next chapter of her life. She has certainly earned it.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, the automobile is central to who we are as Michiganians. The automotive industry helped create the middle class, shape the labor movement, establish America's dominance in manufacturing, and spur new innovation across a range of other economic sectors.

For these reasons, Congressman Dingell in the House of Representatives and I in the Senate introduced legislation in 1998 to establish the Motor Cities National Heritage Area. That legislation specified the heritage area would serve not only to preserve and interpret the history of our Nation's automotive heritage, but that it would also promote current and future economic opportunities.

The MotorCities National Heritage Area has provided over one million dollars to support tourism projects that have boosted economic activity and jobs. These grants attract additional investment because funding is typically matched by more than $6 for each $1 in grant funding. MotorCities also connects a broad range of auto-related organizations and attractions, and has connected more than 100 organizations, which has bolstered their visibility and impact.

Michigan is a magnet for car enthusiasts and history buffs around the globe and MotorCities helps them learn about our history and celebrate it with us. When visitors come to Detroit to see where Henry Ford built the Model T or to Lansing to learn about the rise of Oldsmobile, the existence of the Motor Cities National Heritage Area enhances their visit.

These activities will not be supported by the National Park Service after September 30, 2014 due to a sunset clause in the original enabling legislation. For this reason I am introducing today legislation to extend the date for which federal assistance may still be provided. Congressman Dingell is introducing similar legislation in the House. We have extended the period during which the Park Service can support the Heritage Area to September 30, 2030.

Michigan's automotive heritage is worthy of celebration, remembrance and appreciation. I hope my colleagues will support the legislation I am introducing today.