Floor Statements

Mr. President, first I would ask the Presiding Officer if he could notify me after I have spoken for 4 of my 5 minutes.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

In a few moments we are going to be voting on a very fundamental principle and a very important bill that is literally about bringing jobs home to America. The question before us is, Are we going to begin to change the incentives in the Tax Code where instead of incentivizing jobs being shipped overseas, we are going to support our companies that are bringing jobs home?

This is a no-brainer. I think anybody listening to this debate, anyone across America who is focused in, would say: Why were you not even just having a voice vote and everybody voting yes and then go on to the next tax policy, like inversion, that we need to be dealing with that will keep jobs in America?

Unfortunately, we have had to go through a lot of procedures, motions to proceed. We are now having to go through a supermajority vote here to get to the final bill. I hope colleagues will join us in a bipartisan way to vote to get to the final vote on this bill so we can make it very clear we are on the side of American workers and American businesses.

Here is what we have seen in the last few years, as shown on this chart. In the last decade we have lost 2.4 million jobs being shipped overseas. Now that, by the way, does not count the ones that are leaving on paper right now, which is a whole other story. That is something we need to be deeply concerned about and speaking out about and calling people out on it. But these are the jobs where they are packing up shop and moving overseas.

To add insult to injury, not only does a worker lose their job, the community loses the factory or the business, but we as American taxpayers foot the bill for the move.

Now, that is shocking. When you explain to people that is in the Tax Code--yes, when you pack up shop, you do all the moving, you ship your jobs overseas, you can write that off on your taxes and we all pay for it--they probably look at us like we are crazy. And they are right. We have been trying to close this now for the last few years. This is the opportunity in just a few moments to have that vote to get it done.

What are we going to be voting on specifically? It is very simple: end the taxpayer subsidies that pay for moving costs of corporations to ship jobs overseas. On the other hand, if you want to bring your jobs home, we will gladly allow you to write off the costs of bringing jobs home. On top of that, we will give an additional 20-percent tax credit for the costs of moving production back to the United States.

The good news is we actually have companies, for a variety of reasons, that are moving jobs home. We want to applaud them. There are a lot of reasons for that in a global economy: shipping costs, low natural gas costs that we want to keep low so we have affordable energy and we continue to bring manufacturing back. We have the most productive, skilled workforce in the world. There are a lot of reasons why companies now are bringing jobs home.

But a lot of companies are right on the edge. They look at the Tax Code, and they are making decisions about whether they are going to move overseas or stay, whether they are going to

bring jobs home. The bill we are voting on--and I want to thank Senator Walsh for his leadership. He has been a passionate advocate in talking about it from a Montana perspective. And the two great M States are involved here--Montana and Michigan. We both understand deeply about the fact that you are not going to have a middle class unless you make things in America.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

We have to make things and grow things, and this is about making sure it is in America when we make things and grow things so we have a middle class. But the reality is we have to start in the Tax Code by making it clear we are not going to incentivize moving your jobs overseas. We are not going to incentivize somebody packing up--and, by the way, oftentimes those workers end up having to train their replacement. We have many stories in Michigan where the replacement workers in another country are flown into our country and trained by our people, to take their jobs; and then, to add insult to injury, they pay for the move through the Tax Code. So it is very simple.

I am going to turn to Senator Walsh to close off this debate. But we have a very simple message. If you want to bring your jobs home, we are all in. You can write off the cost of that move and we will give you an extra 20-percent tax cut. But if you want to ship your jobs overseas, you are on your own.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, in a few minutes we are going to have the opportunity to make it clear to the American people that we get it, that we understand, that we need to be bringing jobs home to America, that it is not acceptable we have lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. In fact, as we see more companies coming back to the United States, we need to reward them. We need to say: We are open for business. Come on back. And we are going to make sure we have a Tax Code that supports those decisions.

The Bring Jobs Home Act, which Senator Walsh is leading--and I want to commend him. I know he has talked to me about how important it is to his State of Montana. It certainly is to my State of Michigan as well. We have this opportunity, through Senator Walsh's Bring Jobs Home Act, to show that we are going to begin the process of making our tax system work for American workers, American businesses, and communities.

So we have a vote in a few minutes on whether to proceed to this bill. It is not the final vote. The question is, is this an important enough topic that we would actually proceed to the bill? That is the question. Because there has been objection to just proceeding, as we know, we have to get 60 votes, a supermajority, to proceed. I would hope this is something we would see 100 people--everybody in the U.S. Senate--agree that, yes, we should be debating this issue of how we bring jobs home to America. I cannot imagine a more critical issue for everyone whom we represent.

This bill is very simple. First of all, if you are packing up and leaving this country, you should not be able to write off the cost. The worker who helps pack the equipment that is going to be going overseas should not be paying the bill through the Tax Code. The community that sees the factory empty once the business leaves should not be paying through the Tax Code for the costs of the move. So this bill says no more writeoffs if you are leaving the country.

On the other hand, if you want to bring jobs home, you can write off those costs that our Tax Code will allow you to take as a business expense and--because we think it is so important--we will add another 20-percent tax credit on top of it.

So, very simply, if you want to come home, we are all in. We want to support you doing that. We congratulate those businesses that are making the right business decision right now--for a lot of good reasons: low energy costs, a high-skilled workforce. There are a lot of reasons why folks are coming home. But if you want to leave, you are on your own. That is what the bill is all about. I hope everyone will vote to proceed to the Bring Jobs Home Act.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about something that I think we should all be able to agree on; that is, every American--every American worker--deserves a fair shot to get ahead. One of the great things about our country is that has been a fundamental value or belief, and we need to make sure that value still holds in America right now: If you work hard, you have a chance to have your fair shot to get ahead.

American workers are the best in the world. I can tell you that coming from Michigan, where we make things and grow things, and I am very proud of it. They can outcompete anyone and will win in a fair fight. Unfortunately, too often the fight is not fair today. We see a tax system that is really rigged against jobs in America too many times, and we need to fix that.

Right now our Tax Code contains a shocking loophole that forces taxpayers to foot the bill when companies move jobs overseas. I think most Americans would say: What? Say that again. Companies are packing up and leaving the country, and the Tax Code is rewarding it and we are paying for it?

Workers are forced to pay to ship their own jobs overseas to China or Mexico or other places around the world, and that is something that is very difficult to understand and believe.

Not only do you get laid off, but then you turn around and through your taxes, through tax writeoffs, you are forced to pay for sending your own job overseas. Communities see a factory close, and through their taxes they end up paying for that empty factory in the community. Of course, we have seen way too many in Michigan. Our country sees that.

This is outrageous. It is long past due to end. The good news is we have a chance to fix it tomorrow together on a bipartisan basis. I hope we will have 100 votes of people saying: We want to proceed to the Bring Jobs Home Act.

I want to thank Senator Walsh from Montana for taking the lead. He has very specific stories to tell about what has happened in Montana. Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas is the same--very passionate about this. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join with them as we lead this effort to stand with American businesses that want to stay in America, and workers, families, and communities, and that we send a very strong message about what we think our Tax Code should incentivize by passing the Bring Jobs Home Act. We will have a chance to do that tomorrow.

It is very simple. It closes an outrageous tax loophole that forces taxpayers to foot the bill for companies that move job overseas and replaces it with a tax cut that rewards companies for coming home. In the great State of Michigan we make things. We have always done that. It is part of our identity and our source of pride. It is the backbone of who we are. It is the backbone of the middle class, quite frankly. I do not think we would have a middle class unless we made things and grew things, which is what we do in Michigan. I know that is done in West Virginia and around the country. It is certainly what has created the middle class of this country.

But here is what we have seen, because of a number of things. One of those is the Tax Code that does not make sense in terms of keeping jobs here. Between 2000 and 2009, in the last 10 years, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas. We have a lot of different ways we want to turn that around. In fact, it is being turned around for a number of reasons now. We are beginning to see them come back. But 2.4 million jobs shipped overseas.

To add insult to injury, the American taxpayers were asked to foot the bill. That is just the bottom line. So what you see is people who have worked all of their lives for a paycheck get a pink slip instead. They played by the rules, but they were left on the sidelines. The company takes the jobs overseas and gets a tax break for shipping jobs overseas.

When the Tax Code creates incentives to ship jobs overseas, it is a sign there is something seriously wrong. We have an opportunity to fix it. It starts tomorrow. Our Chair of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden from Oregon, believes this as fiercely as I do, that we need to fix this. I am so proud to be a part of his committee. I know he is committed to making our system more competitive in a global economy. We need to do that. But right now we can close a tax loophole. We have to close a tax loophole so we can stop the flow of jobs going overseas. That is the least we can do. In fact, we should be adding to this first step by stop paying for the move.

We ought to be closing the loophole that allows folks to act as though they are moving on paper, an inversion, when they do not actually move the plant. We ought to be focusing instead on how we are all in this ship together in America paying our fair share and moving the country forward, creating jobs, opportunity, strengthening the middle class.

We still have more jobs leaving than coming back, but we do have a number of companies that are doing the right thing. We need to support them. The smart thing they are doing is bringing jobs back. They are bringing them back to Michigan and to States all across the country. We say welcome back and we say thank you. We should reward these companies. For those companies that are still on the fence about whether to bring jobs back to America, we should help them make up their minds by giving them new tax incentives.

The Bring Jobs Home Act will not only end the practice of allowing companies to deduct the expenses of sending a job overseas, it will also allow companies coming back to deduct their expenses and give them an additional 20-percent tax credit for the cost of bringing jobs back.

This is very simple. Stop the subsidy that is paying for shipping our jobs overseas. Allow the tax writeoff to bring jobs back. Add to it an additional tax cut of 20 percent in order to be able to support our companies that are doing the right thing.

We have got a lot of examples of companies doing the right thing right now. For example, Whirlpool realized it needed to respond more quickly to customer requests in the United States and Canada, so they moved their washing machine manufacturing operations back from Mexico and Germany into Ohio.

GE used to make its hybrid water heater in China. The company needed to trim international shipping costs and wanted more control of the product. They brought manufacturing of appliances back to the United States.

But we are not just talking about manufacturing jobs, which of course

are so very important. Again, GE realized it needed the kind of IT engineering talent it could only find in Michigan. So work that was being done in India is now being done in Van Buren Township in Michigan, as they brought jobs home.

We know that because of the explosion in natural gas and the current low prices, this is an incentive. I want to thank the Presiding Officer for his understanding of that and the importance of supporting American manufacturing, American businesses. We have a number of advantages right now to bring jobs home, to create jobs in America, including not only low energy costs but the finest workers in the world.

We have creative minds with new ideas and hard work and innovation at university labs, and public research and public-private partnerships that are going on, forging technology, empowering world-class innovation. So there is a lot we can be proud of. Manufacturing is, in fact, coming back.

I am proud that part of that is we stood with our American automobile industry at a time when they needed America to be with them and keep manufacturing jobs.

More than 12 million Americans are working in manufacturing today. We created 7,000 new manufacturing jobs in Michigan last month alone. So we have the right policies. We can continue to keep that going. We are at such a tipping point. We are in a situation where we are saying: Okay, you can write off the move; hey, you do not even have to move; you can just change the paperwork, going through these changes of the inversion, and still get all of the benefits of America: the cleanest air and water, and our innovation, education, and roads, and all of the things that are great about America but you are allowed to just change the paperwork and avoid contributing as Americans, to strengthening and being a part of our country.

We are at a tipping point. We have to make some changes that make it very clear whose side we are on. If we want everybody to have a fair shot, part of that is starting with a Tax Code that actually incentivizes a fair shot, not a system that is rigged against the people going to work every day, working hard, trying to get ahead, playing by the rules, all of that which we have grown up believing was the right thing to do in America. We have to make sure the Tax Code reflects the right values and the right policies.

So we are at a point now where we need to put in place the Bring Jobs Home Act. That is going to nudge some of those companies. We need to make some other changes that are going to make it very clear that we want and are committed to jobs in America, manufacturing in America, IT innovation in America, all the other work we can do so well.

You know, if we do not speed this up, at the current rate of jobs coming home, it is going to take us 100 years to bring back all of the jobs we have lost throughout this time. We can do better than that. We have to do better than that. The good news is, we have the power to speed up this process by putting in place the right policies, giving the companies that want to do the right thing the right incentives, the incentives to bring jobs home.

It is time for our Tax Code to stop working against workers, families, communities, and the businesses that are in America, and start working for Americans, for the American middle class. It is smart tax policy we are talking about. I think it is plain old common sense. People in Michigan kind of look at this and go: Why are you even debating this? Why do you have to have a motion about proceeding to this bill? Why is that not something everyone agrees to on a voice vote? People cannot believe we are doing this in our Tax Code. So this is a very important step. We can do this on a bipartisan basis.

I know we have colleagues who are concerned about what is happening on both sides of the aisle. Now is the time to show we can come together and make sure we have the jobs we want for our children and our grandchildren, the next generation. I hope we see an overwhelming bipartisan vote tomorrow.

I cannot think of a single reason why anybody would be opposed to the Bring Jobs Home Act. Why would anyone be opposed to giving every American a fair shot, giving every worker a fair shot to a good job and the ability to care for their families and get ahead? A strong bipartisan vote would send a wonderful message that we can work together, that we get it, that this country will not succeed if it is just about a privileged few and everybody else losing ground, losing the grip to the middle class or having no chance to get into the middle class.

This is an opportunity, with our vote tomorrow, to not only bring jobs home but support the American middle class.

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 come to the floor today to join with Senator Walsh from Montana as he is leading us in the effort to pass the Bring Jobs Home Act, which is pretty basic in terms of where our values and priorities are in terms of our tax policy.

I know we are in the process of determining whether to bring that up. Hopefully we will do that. The American people say it is a no-brainer to bring up this bill and pass it. The reason, first of all, would be the fact that people understand that we need a middle class. We essentially started the middle class 100 years ago. We started it with some pretty basic policies in my State in 1914 when Henry Ford decided to invest in Detroit and Michigan and America and double the salary of his employees so that they could afford to buy his automobiles. He was really doubling down on America and on manufacturing in America. We have seen multiple ways in which that took off and literally created the middle class of our country.

Today we see the middle class under assault, folks working hard trying to hold on. People who felt in the past that if they worked really hard they could get into the middle class now feel as if the system is rigged against them.

We are really in a fight as to whether we are going to move forward and have a strong middle class. Every other country wants what we have. Too many countries have a few very wealthy people and a lot of extremely poor people, and they envy the middle-class economic engine we have had in this country.

As we look at how we move forward to keep and expand the middle class, we have to look for ways in which we can support our workers and our businesses that are investing in America. I believe our workers can outcompete anybody as long as the rules are fair.

There are a lot of ways we need to deal with the rules, but right now we have a tax code that really puts a thumb on the scales against our workers. At this point in time, after the last 10 years where we have actually seen 2.4 million jobs shipped overseas, we still have a tax code where American taxpayers are footing the bill for this movement, which is stunning. I think every time I have talked to people about the fact that when a company packs up and moves, the workers, the

community, the taxpayers pay for that through write offs in the Tax Code, people say: You have got to be kidding. Why did we let that happen?

Well, the Bring Jobs Home Act is a way to address that and to stop it from happening. Let me talk about the very specific and very simple ways we do that. We would stop the taxpayer subsidies that pay for moving costs. We instead would say to companies: If you are coming back, you can write off those costs. If you want to move back, you can write off those costs, and we will add an additional 20 percent tax credit for the cost of moving, so you get an additional tax cut. So if you want to come home, we are all for it. You can write off those costs. You will get an additional tax cut. But if you want to leave this country, you are on your own.

It is very simple. That is what this does.

Are there other things we need to do in the Tax Code? You bet. We have very serious issues. More and more of our companies are using this process called inversion. It seems to me that a good place to start a full discussion about how we have a tax code for America, that invests in America, that rewards American business and American workers, families, communities, is to start with the Bring Jobs Home Act. Surely everybody on both sides of the aisle ought to be able to agree that we would not pay for the cost of shipping jobs overseas through the Tax Code.

I also wish to commend a lot of companies right now that are actually bringing jobs home. It is exciting for me, being from a major manufacturing State, to see that we are having a resurgence in manufacturing. For a number of reasons--including lower energy costs, transportation costs, and a resurgence in manufacturing--we are seeing jobs come home. We are seeing manufacturers such as Ford and Caterpillar and GE, which have announced major investments in the United States, bringing jobs back from Japan and Mexico and China. This is good. We want that. There are smaller manufacturers that are taking advantage of our skilled and ready workforce. Over 80 percent of the companies actually bringing jobs back are companies with less than $200 million in sales.

Companies are taking a look and they are coming back. We want to reward that. When they look at the Tax Code, we want them to see the right message. We want folks to see that, hey, you know what, if you are one of the good guys and you are bringing jobs home, we want to give you some extra help--to pay for that with an extra tax credit. But we also want to send a message to those who are thinking about leaving: Our Tax Code will no longer reward your leaving America.

I do not know how many times I have heard from workers saying they not only are insulted by paying for the cost of the move through the Tax Code, but oftentimes they are training their replacements from other countries. The replacements come over and they train them. I mean, this is craziness.

At a time when too many people have lost their jobs and are looking for that fair shot--what is the next job, what is the next opportunity for them--how do we make sure the Tax Code, our laws, and our investments work for Americans and give everybody a fair shot? That is what this is about. It is very much about making sure we have a fair shot for every American. Part of that is making sure that we have good- paying jobs in America and that our Tax Code is rewarding the creation of those good jobs and rewarding the companies that are bringing jobs home.

I again thank Senator Walsh for his leadership. He has been very clear about how this affects his State of Montana and his concerns about this issue. I thank all of those who are cosponsors and working with us on this bill. I hope it will be brought up as soon as possible. This is really an opportunity for all of us to show the American people that we get it, that we are willing to work together on a bipartisan basis to do something that is very simple and very straightforward and say: As an American we are no longer going to pay for the move, and when you move jobs overseas, the Tax Code is not going to pay for that. But we will stand together in supporting those efforts that help companies bring jobs home.

I hope when we do have the vote on this issue we will see a resounding yes from everyone. I know the American people would love to see a strong bipartisan vote right now that would actually address something they care about deeply, which is the ability to have a good- paying job, to work hard, play by the rules, and have a fair shot to get ahead, which is what America has been all about. That is who we are as opposed to other places--the ability to have the opportunity to work hard and get ahead. Everybody needs to know that fair shot is still available to them. The Bring Jobs Home Act is part of letting people know it is.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I too wish to pay tribute to a great industrialist who became an even greater philanthropist, a passionate protector of our Great Lakes, and a dear friend, Peter Wege, who passed away yesterday at the age of 94.

A man of profound faith, with a deep love for his country, Peter was born in Grand Rapids, MI. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, Peter left the University of Michigan to serve his country as a multi- engine pilot for the Army Air Force.

When he returned from World War II, he became a salesman for an office furniture company founded by his father. He wasn't given any breaks--he was forced to rise through the company by virtue of his own hard work, not his name.

He eventually became vice chairman of that company, whose name was changed to Steelcase, Inc., in 1954. The company became the world's largest manufacturer of office furniture, and Peter was eager to use the wealth he had earned to make a difference in the many causes that mattered to him.

Through the Wege Foundation, Peter made generous donations to the arts, to education, to health care, and to other human services.

His greatest passion, however, was the environment and our beautiful Great Lakes.

When he gave money to be used for the construction of a building, Peter never asked to see his name in gold. He only wanted the building to be green: He insisted on sustainable, LEED-certified design.

I can remember how proud Peter was to give me a book he had written. The title ``Economicology,'' was a word he coined to describe his belief that you could make profits without making pollution.

As an outgrowth of his love for Michigan, Peter was a champion for the Great Lakes: His sponsorship of the ``Healing Our Waters'' conference brought conservationists and environmentalists from around the world. This helped provide the vision for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which has provided over $1 billion in funding for nearly 3,000 projects around the Great Lakes since 2010.

Throughout his life, Peter strived to make the world a better place for future generations. In that respect--as in every other endeavor he devoted himself to--Peter was an unqualified success.

He will be deeply missed, but Peter's generous spirit will live on.

Peter will be remembered every time a child plays in the sand on one of our beautiful Michigan beaches.

Peter will be remembered every time a family gathers around a dinner table to enjoy fish caught in one of our beautiful Great Lakes or the many fresh, clean rivers and streams across the region.

Peter will be remembered with every refreshing glass of clean water that comes from the tap and every invigorating breath of fresh air.

He will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, I thank our leader Senator Durbin for speaking on a number of subjects that actually all add up to the fact that we believe every American ought to have a fair shot to make it, whether it is jobs in a new clean energy economy. When I think about the fact that we will not have a middle class, we will not have an economy unless we make things and grow things--and that is what we do in Michigan. I think about our new clean energy opportunities. There are 8,000 parts in a big wind turbine, and somebody has to make those parts. We can make those in Michigan. So when we talk about doing the right things so we can breathe the air and drink the water, it is also about creating new opportunities for good-paying jobs for people, and it is about making sure our economy works for everybody and that everybody has a fair shot. That is the best of America.

We have before us in the Senate three nominations for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and we will be voting on one of them in a few hours. They came out of the Agriculture Committee, which I am honored to chair, so I wish to speak about them for a moment.

This independent agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is entrusted with the important mission of protecting investors in the derivatives market from fraud, manipulation, and other abuses. That means farmers and ranchers. It means consumers. It means businesses, large and small. It means a way to create capital so it can be invested in new jobs.

The oversight of this agency is incredibly important. Given this responsibility, it is imperative that we select Commissioners who have demonstrated not only expertise in global financial markets but the integrity and the judgment necessary to lead the implementation reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. This

is a five-member Commission. Due to some changes and folks moving on in their careers, we have two members right now, one Democratic and one Republican. So we have a responsibility of now filling all five. We will have in front of us this week, at some point throughout the week, all three of the folks who came out of our committee.

We have three nominees before us who I think fit the requirement of having expertise, integrity, and judgment. The first is Republican nominee J. Christopher Giancarlo, and then we have two Democratic nominees, Tim Massad, who has been nominated to Chair the CFTC, and Sharon Bowen. All three are highly qualified nominees who were approved by the agriculture committee on a voice vote. Right now I will focus on Ms. Bowen, whom we will be voting on in just a little bit.

Within the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, individual agencies were directed to establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. This action was taken to address the lack of diversity of qualified men and women in Federal agencies involved in financial regulation but also subcontractors and contractors who receive billions of dollars from the government.

The CFTC itself should lead by example when it comes to diversity as well as expertise. So I am especially pleased President Obama selected Sharon Bowen as a nominee for the Commission. She will be the first African-American woman to serve on the CFTC and will be the only woman serving at this point in time on the five-member Commission. She has the expertise and experience to be an excellent Commissioner.

During her testimony before the Agriculture Committee, Ms. Bowen told of her upbringing as the youngest of five children in the small town of St. Julien's Creek in Virginia. During Ms. Bowen's youth, St. Julien's Creek was a segregated town, and her family had modest means, but these challenges forged her character. Ms. Bowen developed a knack for understanding the perspective of people who have a stake in public policy decisions but no voice in how those decisions are made.

This background has served her well throughout her years as an attorney. As a partner in the New York firm of Latham & Watkins, Ms. Bowen represented clients in a range of complex financial transactions. So her knowledge of derivatives and global markets is based on real- world experience.

She has been selected by one publication as one of America's top Black lawyers and chosen as the Lawyer of the Year by the Metropolitan Black Bar Association.

Recognizing Ms. Bowen's talents, President Obama nominated her to be vice chair, then acting chair of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, a very important nonprofit which helps protect investors whose brokers have failed them. Ms. Bowen was confirmed by the Senate, at that time, unanimously, and I certainly hope that will happen again.

Sharon Bowen has worked tirelessly to fulfill what are called SIPC's mandates--the Securities Investor Protection Corporation--helping thousands of small investors faced with the failure of their brokerage firms. During Ms. Bowen's tenure on the board, SIPC has returned $24.5 billion to over 9,000 investors.

Despite all her accomplishments through the years, it was evident from Ms. Bowen's testimony in the agriculture committee that she remains grounded by a sensibility for how markets have effects far beyond investors. They affect each of us. They affect consumers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and others who create jobs.

She recognizes the urgency of protecting these individuals from excessive speculation and manipulation. She told our committee:

I understand the importance of being the voice of the

under-represented and small business owners who have not had

a seat at the table, as I do today.

The CFTC needs a Commissioner of Ms. Bowen's background and skill set. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting Ms. Bowen's nomination and to quickly move forward with the nominations of Mr. Giancarlo and Mr. Massad, whom I will be speaking about more as their nominations come before us, so they can get to work protecting investors and every American who is vulnerable to abuses in the futures and swaps markets.

We need those markets to work, to create capital, and also to manage risk for those who are using the markets in order to be able to manage their own risk, and we need a full five-member CFTC of competent, qualified people in order to get that done. That is what we are doing today with the vote, and then, as we move forward this week, hopefully by the end of the week we will have the full complement of the CFTC in place.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I will take just a moment. Our colleague from Louisiana was on the floor a while ago referring to one of the nominees we will have coming up for a cloture vote in a moment to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which is so significant.

I want to correct a few things in the record for my colleagues and first remind everyone that Ms. Bowen, who will be the nominee in front of us, was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be a director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, where she has honorably served, after 25 years of representing clients in complex financial transactions as a partner of a major international firm.

The issue that has been raised on the floor relates to a decision that was made unanimously by the board she

chairs that relates to a particular case where there is no question that there were citizens who were ripped off in a Ponzi scheme, the Stanford Ponzi scheme, in fact.

The question that came before this board that covers certain kinds of losses is whether what happened is something that could be covered under this particular entity, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

Based on legal advice, outside counsel, and review, the board unanimously looked at this and said, unfortunately, due to law--which was written by Congress--this particular board could not cover the fraud victims in this particular case.

This subsequently went to the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, which concluded the current law does not authorize SIPC to cover these particular fraud victims. This has now gone on to the Court of Appeals.

SIPC and Ms. Bowen have indicated that if the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the victims, they are more than happy to include them and to reimburse them for the terrible situation they all found themselves in. This is a legal question of whether this particular fund is allowed to reimburse these particular victims of fraud. There have been over 9,000 victims who have been reimbursed through this fund in a lot of different situations, but it is a legal question.

The way this has been interpreted by our colleague from Louisiana-- that somehow this is something personal that Ms. Bowen is involved in to try to stop these people, these victims, from being able to be reimbursed and made whole--is absolutely false. Again, this is an issue in the court. If the court rules in favor of those who were victims of this Ponzi scheme, then the group, the agency, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, has indicated they will move forward and include them under the scope of their responsibility for reimbursement.

Certainly what happened to people in this situation is terrible. I understand their concerns and wanting to find a way to be able to be made whole. But this is a legal question that was unanimously decided by a board of directors, of which Ms. Bowen is now the chair, it was recommended by outside counsel, and it was also something that was upheld by the Federal district court. It is now in the Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals changes and reverses the lower court, then they will act accordingly.

We should not have the situation where a very qualified member and nominee for this very important oversight agency, the futures industry, would be held responsible or somehow be caught up in the politics. I appreciate the legitimate concerns, but to lay those at the feet of this woman, at this point, simply is not fair.

Again, she was, on her qualifications, unanimously confirmed by the Senate once already, and I would urge colleagues to join together to support moving forward on this nomination with the cloture vote and ultimately to support her.

She has strong support throughout the country, is known for standing up for victims, and will play a very important role and be a very important voice going forward with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Senate has now approved three nominations to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC is an important independent agency with a mission to provide oversight of the futures, swaps, and options markets, protecting market participants from fraud and manipulation. The agency ensures safety and soundness of the market and makes sure that hedgers, such as farmers and ranchers or manufacturing companies, can manage risks appropriately, and there needs to be confidence in those markets and in the oversight of those markets. The Commissioners confirmed today will not only help protect those markets but finish the implementation of reforms contained in the Wall Street Reform Act.

Earlier today I spoke about Sharon Bowen's qualifications, and I was very pleased to see the Senate approve her nomination. Now I wish to talk about the other two CFTC Commissioners appointed by the President who were also confirmed by the Senate just a few minutes ago.

For the role of CFTC Chairman, President Obama has selected Timothy Massad. Mr. Massad has a sterling record of public service. Three years ago he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate to serve as the Department of Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability. In that position Mr. Massad oversaw the winddown of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. He devoted himself to helping homeowners who were struggling to stay in their homes while helping communities where vacant houses were a blight to neighborhoods. It is a tribute to Mr. Massad's leadership that the banks that benefited from TARP have repaid nearly every dollar.

At the Treasury Department Mr. Massad not only made good on his responsibility to ensure a positive return to American taxpayers, he did so with complete transparency.

During Mr. Massad's testimony before the Agriculture Committee, he emphasized that need for strong enforcement to ensure public confidence in our markets, which is so very important. He demonstrated an understanding of how markets must provide hedging and price discovery for end users.

Mr. Massad demonstrated that he will be an advocate for strong international regulatory standards in a global derivatives market. Throughout the course of his career in the private sector and then in the public sector, Mr. Massad has earned a reputation as a consensus builder, a tireless worker, and a protector of the public interest. I have no doubt Mr. Massad will continue his excellence in his role as CFTC Chair.

The second nominee chosen by President Obama is Christopher Giancarlo. Since 2000, Mr. Giancarlo has worked in companies that focused on swaps markets regulated by the CFTC. For most of that time Mr. Giancarlo has been a senior executive at the interdealer broker, GFI Group.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Giancarlo talked about how the futures and swaps markets must serve the needs of farmers and other end users. He recognizes the central role that commodities play in our Nation's economy.

Like Mr. Massad Mr. Giancarlo understands the important lessons of the financial crisis. For example, in his remarks Mr. Giancarlo emphasized the value of transparency in the swaps markets. He agrees with the provisions in the Wall Street Reform Act that allow robust oversight of U.S. swaps intermediaries, while at the same time Mr. Giancarlo talked about the importance of balanced regulatory oversight in open and competitive markets. In short, Mr. Giancarlo is a pragmatist. This is a quality that will serve him well as a CFTC Commissioner.

I congratulate not only Mr. Giancarlo but Mr. Massad and Ms. Bowen on their confirmations today. I have every expectation that they will work well with all of the stakeholders involved in the vitally important work of the CFTC. This will ensure that CFTC is fulfilling its mission of protecting the public, which is the bottom line.

In Congress we must also do our part to protect these markets and make sure the CFTC has the resources it needs to do its job, and that means having both the staff and technology in place so the CFTC can perform its work. We have given them so much more work with the new legislation, so we need to make sure they have the resources to do what we have asked them to do.

The agency must be able to keep up with the markets they are overseeing. They can't do that if they don't have the funding they need, and this will be a priority for me as we seek to update the CFTC and its abilities to protect consumers and market participants. We have 21st century markets and we need a 21st century CFTC to oversee them.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is beginning its work on a CFTC reauthorization bill. The approval of today's nominees and our upcoming work on this legislation will help make sure the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is fully empowered to do everything that we and the public are relying on them to do.

Again, I congratulate all of those confirmed today. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Examining the Safety and Effectiveness of our Transportation Systems.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 3, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining a Constitutional Amendment to Restore Democracy to the American People.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Farming, Fishing, Forestry and Hunting in an Era of Changing Climate.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and that the agriculture committee be discharged from further consideration of PN 1642; that the Senate proceed to consideration of the nomination and that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking be discharged from further consideration of S. 2270 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Collins substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 453.

I ask unanimous consent that the Rubio amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Rubio amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.