Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor in strong support of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act.

Our men and women in uniform serve our country with honor and courage. They put themselves in harm's way day in and day out to protect us. I have a special appreciation for how much servicemembers and their families contribute to our country, and how important it is that we honor their service. All three of my brothers served in the military, and my oldest brother was career military. He flew 288 combat missions in Vietnam.

When you grow up in a family with someone in the military, you know how lucky you are to see them come home safely. But that doesn't mean the sacred trust with our servicemembers ends the moment they step off a plane. We owe our servicemembers the very best, and that means ensuring they always have access to high-quality services and care, including mental health care.

The Clay Hunt SAV Act, introduced in the Senate by Senators John McCain and Richard Blumenthal, would strengthen critical mental health care services and suicide prevention resources for our country's veterans. We have heard the deeply troubling statistics. The VA has reported that 22 veterans die each day from suicide. Data collected in the BackHome project shows that while 10 percent of Americans served in the military, veterans make up 20 percent of all suicides in the United States. These statistics tell us something is deeply wrong and that we need to make significant changes.

The SAV act calls for an evaluation of the mental health services and suicide prevention efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense, and launches a pilot program to provide education loan repayment for psychiatrists who work at the VA. It also helps build stronger partnerships between the VA and nonprofit organizations working with veterans in our communities.

The SAV act is named for Clay Hunt, a marine veteran from Texas who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and was a strong advocate for improved services for his fellow veterans. He struggled with post-traumatic stress, and when he was unable to access the care he needed from the VA, he took his own life.

As Clay's mother Susan Selke said in her testimony at the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing last summer:

Not one more veteran should have to go through what Clay

went through with the VA after returning home from the war.

Not one more parent should have to testify before a

congressional committee to compel the VA to fulfill its

responsibilities to those who served and sacrificed.

She went on to say:

The reforms, evaluations, and programs directed by this

legislation will be critical to helping the VA better serve

and treat veterans suffering from mental injuries from war.

Had the VA been doing these things all along, it very well

may have saved Clay's life.

I am proud Massachusetts has taken steps at the State level to help improve suicide prevention resources for veterans, such as establishing the Statewide Advocacy for Veterans' Empowerment Program, or SAVE.

The SAVE team is comprised of veterans who work directly in the community to connect veterans and their families to services provided by the Commonwealth and by nonprofits. I have also visited several outstanding community organizations in Massachusetts, such as Veterans Inc. in Worcester, Soldier On in Pittsfield, and the New England Center for Homeless Veterans in Boston, that work tirelessly to help servicemembers access the full range of services they need and deserve, from housing and education to health care.

In August, I met with veterans in Framingham, MA, at a mobile vet center. One of the veterans I heard from was Army MAJ Justin Fitch, who was working at the Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center. Justin, who is battling terminal cancer and has had his own struggles with depression, is retiring from the Army just this week, but he is still a powerful and relentless voice fighting to improve care and prevent suicide among veterans fighting depression and psychological stress after returning home from war.

Justin told me:

Too many veterans are suffering in silence. Twenty-two a

day is a lot. One is too many.

Justin is right. Our armed service men and women are tough, smart, and courageous. They make huge sacrifices to keep our families safe, and we owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service. But gratitude isn't enough. We must do more to protect our men and women in uniform who devote their lives to the service of our country.

It is clear that Congress has more work to do to bolster our Nation's commitment to supporting veterans and providing the mental health care services they deserve. The Clay Hunt SAV Act is an important part of this effort. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to pass this legislation in the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 announce the introduction of the Medical Innovation Act, which is a commonsense proposal that could dramatically increase our Nation's investment in lifesaving medical research.

During much of the 20th century, America made significant investments in this area through the National Institutes of Health, and it has been a remarkable success. We have transformed medicine across America and around the world. NIH support helps train each new generation of scientists and develop each new generation of medicine. NIH-supported discoveries often get picked up by small, creative, nimble biotechnology companies, which in turn get picked up by large pharmaceutical companies, which in turn sometimes result in wildly successful blockbuster drugs. Each of these blockbuster drugs brings in more than $1 billion a year for the drug companies, and each one transforms lives.

Nearly everyone in Congress supports increased funding for NIH, but for 10 years the NIH budget hasn't even kept up with the pace of inflation. Why? Because nobody wants to step up and find a way to pay for it.

It is time to break the stalemate. The Medical Innovation Act would increase NIH funding without raising taxes and without stealing support from other critical programs. Instead, support would come from blockbuster drug companies--only those that relied on government- supported research to generate billions in sales and only those that break the law and enter into major settlement agreements with the government. In such cases, the government settlements would go forward as they normally do, but the offending company would also be required to reinvest a relatively small portion of the profits it has generated as a result of taxpayer-supported research and put that money right back into the NIH.

We celebrate the accomplishments of our pharmaceutical industry-- especially the industry's billion-dollar blockbuster drugs. These drugs have literally transformed the treatment of high cholesterol, diabetes, HIV, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, colon cancer, and leukemia. They help Americans live longer, healthier lives. But we also know that blockbuster drugs don't just appear overnight as if by magic. Rarely do they result from a single giant company's individual genius.

I agree with Republican Senators Alexander and Burr, who say in a report released just this morning:

[I]n many cases, the research leading to the discovery and

development of these products has been advanced, funded, or

enabled in some way by NIH.

Drug companies make great contributions, but so do taxpayers.

The big drug companies are making billions as a result of these investments, but over the last 10 years a few of our wealthiest drug companies have been caught making money a second way--by skirting the law. These companies are not getting swept up in minor paperwork mistakes. They are not victims of overly eager regulators. They have been caught defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, withholding critical safety information about their drugs, marketing their drugs for uses that aren't approved, and giving doctors kickbacks for writing prescriptions for their drugs.

Between 2007 and 2012 the world's largest pharmaceutical companies paid over $13 billion in fines and settlements. Despite those numbers, it is clear that for the biggest drug companies this is simply a cost of doing business. In fact, several of the biggest drug companies have been caught breaking the law, have paid a fine, and then have broken the law again. And why not? Even the biggest pharmaceutical settlement ever--a $3 billion penalty for withholding life-threatening safety data and engaging in illegal marketing practices--accounted for less than 10 percent of what the company made selling those drugs. In fact, the day the settlement was announced, that company's stock price actually went up.

It doesn't have to be this way. The Medical Innovation Act would serve

double duty--requiring more accountability from the biggest drug companies while giving medical research the support it deserves.

This isn't a tax; it is simply a condition of settling to avoid a trial in a major case of wrongdoing. If a company never breaks the law, it will never pay. If an accused company goes to trial instead of settling out of court, it will never pay. It is more like a swear jar. Whenever a huge drug company that is generating enormous profits as a result of Federal research investments breaks the law, it has to put some money in the jar to help fund the next generation of medical research.

Since we announced this proposal, we have seen an outpouring of support from hospitals, doctors, patient groups, and research universities. All of them want to break the stalemate on NIH funding and get back to the business of saving lives.

We have also heard some grumbling from the army of lobbyists that works for some of the biggest drug companies--companies that would prefer not to pay a bigger penalty when they break the law. If they have better ideas for ending this congressional stalemate and getting more money into NIH, I am eager to hear them.

These lobbyists have also claimed that there is ``no logical basis'' for asking these companies to pay up when they break the law. Well, I disagree. If a company that is making literally billions of dollars as a result of taxpayers' NIH investments turns around and engages in allegedly illegal conduct and wants to settle to make the case go away, that seems like a pretty logical basis for asking them to invest a little in the next generation of medical breakthroughs.

Lobbyists have also written that the Medical Innovation Act might create ``unnecessary litigation.'' Well, it is illegal to defraud Medicare. It is illegal to pay kickbacks to doctors. It is illegal to hide safety data from the FDA or manufacture drugs in dirty, contaminated facilities. Our biggest and most successful drug companies make billions of dollars by inventing treatments and improving the public's health, and when they do, we applaud them for it. But if they want to avoid unnecessary litigation, then they should follow the law. If they don't want to put a dollar in the swear jar, then stop swearing.

I don't kid myself. I know how difficult it is to get things done in Washington, and I understand that a handful of powerful actors with money and power likes things just the way they are and will fight any effort to change. But even if a few of the biggest drug companies don't like it, I am hopeful that we can build support for this idea because the Medical Innovation Act is a major move toward substantially increasing Federal support for medical research in a way that doesn't raise taxes and doesn't cut other critical programs.

If this policy had been in place over the past 5 years, NIH would have had nearly $6 billion more every year to fund thousands of new grants to scientists and universities and research centers around the country. That is almost a 20-percent increase in NIH funding.

It has been 10 years of stagnant Federal investments followed by sequester cuts, 10 years of rejecting potentially life-changing research proposals at NIH, 10 years of telling young researchers that their innovative ideas have almost no chance of getting off the ground. We are running out of time.

Today we are choking off support for projects that could lead to the next major breakthrough against cancer, heart disease, Ebola, Alzheimer's, diabetes, or other deadly conditions. We are starving projects that would transform the lives of our children on the autism spectrum. We are suffocating breakthrough ideas that would give new hope to those with ALS.

That is not who we are. We are not a nation that abandons the sick. And we are not a nation that says, ``I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own.'' We are a nation of people who work together. We are a nation of people who invest in each other. We have done it for generations--and for generations we have led the world in medical innovation.

It is time to renew that commitment--our commitment to our children, our commitment to our parents, our commitment to ourselves, by making it a little easier for the biggest drug companies to help develop the next generation of cures and making it a little harder for them to profit from breaking the law and defrauding taxpayers. It is time to pass the Medical Innovation Act.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to announce the introduction of the Medical Innovation Act, which is a commonsense proposal that could dramatically increase our Nation's investment in lifesaving medical research.

During much of the 20th century, America made significant investments in this area through the National Institutes of Health, and it has been a remarkable success. We have transformed medicine across America and around the world. NIH support helps train each new generation of scientists and develop each new generation of medicine. NIH-supported discoveries often get picked up by small, creative, nimble biotechnology companies, which in turn get picked up by large pharmaceutical companies, which in turn sometimes result in wildly successful blockbuster drugs. Each of these blockbuster drugs brings in more than $1 billion a year for the drug companies, and each one transforms lives.

Nearly everyone in Congress supports increased funding for NIH, but for 10 years the NIH budget hasn't even kept up with the pace of inflation. Why? Because nobody wants to step up and find a way to pay for it.

It is time to break the stalemate. The Medical Innovation Act would increase NIH funding without raising taxes and without stealing support from other critical programs. Instead, support would come from blockbuster drug companies--only those that relied on government- supported research to generate billions in sales and only those that break the law and enter into major settlement agreements with the government. In such cases, the government settlements would go forward as they normally do, but the offending company would also be required to reinvest a relatively small portion of the profits it has generated as a result of taxpayer-supported research and put that money right back into the NIH.

We celebrate the accomplishments of our pharmaceutical industry-- especially the industry's billion-dollar blockbuster drugs. These drugs have literally transformed the treatment of high cholesterol, diabetes, HIV, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, colon cancer, and leukemia. They help Americans live longer, healthier lives. But we also know that blockbuster drugs don't just appear overnight as if by magic. Rarely do they result from a single giant company's individual genius.

I agree with Republican Senators Alexander and Burr, who say in a report released just this morning:

[I]n many cases, the research leading to the discovery and

development of these products has been advanced, funded, or

enabled in some way by NIH.

Drug companies make great contributions, but so do taxpayers.

The big drug companies are making billions as a result of these investments, but over the last 10 years a few of our wealthiest drug companies have been caught making money a second way--by skirting the law. These companies are not getting swept up in minor paperwork mistakes. They are not victims of overly eager regulators. They have been caught defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, withholding critical safety information about their drugs, marketing their drugs for uses that aren't approved, and giving doctors kickbacks for writing prescriptions for their drugs.

Between 2007 and 2012 the world's largest pharmaceutical companies paid over $13 billion in fines and settlements. Despite those numbers, it is clear that for the biggest drug companies this is simply a cost of doing business. In fact, several of the biggest drug companies have been caught breaking the law, have paid a fine, and then have broken the law again. And why not? Even the biggest pharmaceutical settlement ever--a $3 billion penalty for withholding life-threatening safety data and engaging in illegal marketing practices--accounted for less than 10 percent of what the company made selling those drugs. In fact, the day the settlement was announced, that company's stock price actually went up.

It doesn't have to be this way. The Medical Innovation Act would serve

double duty--requiring more accountability from the biggest drug companies while giving medical research the support it deserves.

This isn't a tax; it is simply a condition of settling to avoid a trial in a major case of wrongdoing. If a company never breaks the law, it will never pay. If an accused company goes to trial instead of settling out of court, it will never pay. It is more like a swear jar. Whenever a huge drug company that is generating enormous profits as a result of Federal research investments breaks the law, it has to put some money in the jar to help fund the next generation of medical research.

Since we announced this proposal, we have seen an outpouring of support from hospitals, doctors, patient groups, and research universities. All of them want to break the stalemate on NIH funding and get back to the business of saving lives.

We have also heard some grumbling from the army of lobbyists that works for some of the biggest drug companies--companies that would prefer not to pay a bigger penalty when they break the law. If they have better ideas for ending this congressional stalemate and getting more money into NIH, I am eager to hear them.

These lobbyists have also claimed that there is ``no logical basis'' for asking these companies to pay up when they break the law. Well, I disagree. If a company that is making literally billions of dollars as a result of taxpayers' NIH investments turns around and engages in allegedly illegal conduct and wants to settle to make the case go away, that seems like a pretty logical basis for asking them to invest a little in the next generation of medical breakthroughs.

Lobbyists have also written that the Medical Innovation Act might create ``unnecessary litigation.'' Well, it is illegal to defraud Medicare. It is illegal to pay kickbacks to doctors. It is illegal to hide safety data from the FDA or manufacture drugs in dirty, contaminated facilities. Our biggest and most successful drug companies make billions of dollars by inventing treatments and improving the public's health, and when they do, we applaud them for it. But if they want to avoid unnecessary litigation, then they should follow the law. If they don't want to put a dollar in the swear jar, then stop swearing.

I don't kid myself. I know how difficult it is to get things done in Washington, and I understand that a handful of powerful actors with money and power likes things just the way they are and will fight any effort to change. But even if a few of the biggest drug companies don't like it, I am hopeful that we can build support for this idea because the Medical Innovation Act is a major move toward substantially increasing Federal support for medical research in a way that doesn't raise taxes and doesn't cut other critical programs.

If this policy had been in place over the past 5 years, NIH would have had nearly $6 billion more every year to fund thousands of new grants to scientists and universities and research centers around the country. That is almost a 20-percent increase in NIH funding.

It has been 10 years of stagnant Federal investments followed by sequester cuts, 10 years of rejecting potentially life-changing research proposals at NIH, 10 years of telling young researchers that their innovative ideas have almost no chance of getting off the ground. We are running out of time.

Today we are choking off support for projects that could lead to the next major breakthrough against cancer, heart disease, Ebola, Alzheimer's, diabetes, or other deadly conditions. We are starving projects that would transform the lives of our children on the autism spectrum. We are suffocating breakthrough ideas that would give new hope to those with ALS.

That is not who we are. We are not a nation that abandons the sick. And we are not a nation that says, ``I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own.'' We are a nation of people who work together. We are a nation of people who invest in each other. We have done it for generations--and for generations we have led the world in medical innovation.

It is time to renew that commitment--our commitment to our children, our commitment to our parents, our commitment to ourselves, by making it a little easier for the biggest drug companies to help develop the next generation of cures and making it a little harder for them to profit from breaking the law and defrauding taxpayers. It is time to pass the Medical Innovation Act.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, after 9/11, Congress passed TRIA, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, to make sure commercial developers could afford the high costs of insuring their properties against the possibility of a devastating terrorist attack.

This is a bill for the people who own the tallest buildings in the world. TRIA is a critical program that helps drive economic development and create jobs.

Last July Senate Democrats were united in support of a bill that would reauthorize TRIA and establish a National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers, called NARAB.

The bill passed with 93 votes. Senate negotiators then reached a compromise with the House on both TRIA and NARAB, but at the eleventh hour House Republicans tacked on a provision that would roll back an unrelated provision in Dodd-Frank, and then they left town for the year, knowing the Senate would either have to swallow the change or let TRIA expire.

That same bill, the TRIA compromise with the extra Dodd-Frank

change attached to it, is currently being debated by the Senate.

We have seen this movie before. At the end of the last Congress, House Republicans tacked a rollback of a ``no bailouts'' provision in Dodd-Frank on to the must-pass funding bill. That rollback, which was literally written by lobbyists for the giant bank Citigroup, was a Wall Street giveaway--plain and simple. It made our financial system less safe, and it increased the chances of another taxpayer bailout--all so the biggest banks in the country could rake in more profits. But it passed the House and then the House left town, and the only way to stop it here in the Senate would have been to shut the government down.

Now, once again, the House has attached a Dodd-Frank change to a must-pass piece of legislation. Whatever one's views are on the substance of that provision, none of us should endorse the tactics House Republicans have used to try to achieve this change. While some might find this particular Dodd-Frank change desirable or unobjectionable, that may not be the case with other changes that Republicans decide to strap on to important, must-pass bills. If we fail to challenge this cynical strategy now, it will only encourage Republicans to pull our financial regulations apart piece by piece.

Just over 4 years ago, every Democrat voted for Dodd-Frank as a necessary response to the worst financial crisis in generations. Republicans have not hidden their intention to try to undo these basic financial reforms. If Republicans want to try to roll back financial reforms, let's have that debate on the merits of each proposal. But we cannot have that debate if we permit Republicans to attach financial reform rollbacks to must-pass pieces of legislation such as government funding bills and the TRIA reauthorization bill.

That is why Senator Schumer and I are offering a substitute amendment that reflects the original compromise between the House and the Senate--an amendment that includes the compromise language on TRIA and NARAB but omits the Dodd-Frank change.

A vote for this amendment is fully consistent with the vote that 93 Senators took last July--a vote in favor of a clean reauthorization of TRIA and establishment of NARAB. For that reason, I am hopeful it will pass, we can send the President a clean TRIA bill, and we can debate this Dodd-Frank provision separately.

I am also hopeful Senate Democrats in particular will support it on the principle that the Senate expects the House to honor the results of good-faith negotiations and will not support procedural tricks to tack on Dodd-Frank changes to unrelated, must-pass bills--no matter what those changes might be.

The Treasury Department supports this amendment. Here is what they said:

We support a long-term renewal of TRIA, given the important

role it plays to our national security and economy, while

making sensible reforms to further reduce taxpayer exposure.

It is unfortunate that some are attempting to use TRIA

legislation to modify the Wall Street Reform Act. We support

the Warren substitute amendment which represents the

bicameral, bipartisan TRIA compromise from last year that

would have averted any lapse in the program.

I agree with the President.

I voted for TRIA in the banking committee, and I was one of 93 Senators who voted for it on the Senate floor. But I cannot support Wall Street reform rollbacks through these hostage tactics. So if we are unable to pass a clean TRIA amendment, then I will also vote no on the bill.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I came to the floor last week to ask a simple question: Who does this government work for? Does it work only for the billionaires and the biggest corporations or does it work for all of us?

I asked that question last week as Congress considered the government funding bill--a bill that included a completely unrelated provision literally written by Citigroup lobbyists that increased the risk of future taxpayer bailouts just so the biggest banks in this country could rake in more profits. Sadly, that bill was just the latest example of how the government works just fine for those who have already made it.

In the past few years, Federal agencies have entered into a number of major settlement agreements with big banks and other large corporations after those companies have broken the law. These agencies have touted these settlements as being worth millions or in some cases billions of dollars. That sounds like a great deal for taxpayers, but often that sticker price is much higher than the actual value at the settlement. Agencies have often permitted corporations to deduct the cost of the settlement from their taxes, which can cut the actual value of the payment by more than 30 percent. And instead of requiring corporations to actually pay the full settlement amount, agencies often give corporations credits toward the settlement amount for taking certain actions--actions the corporations would have taken even if the settlement had never existed. By structuring the settlements this way, agencies can get credit for being tough on corporate wrongdoers even when the actual deal paints a much different picture.

In January I introduced a bill with Senator Coburn to shed more light on this kind of backroom dealmaking. This bipartisan bill, the Truth in Settlements Act, is pretty simple. It just requires Federal agencies to publicly disclose certain basic information about the major settlements they enter into with corporations--information such as whether a settlement is going to be tax deductible or whether it lets companies claim credit for things they are already doing. That is pretty much it.

The idea behind the bill is straightforward. If the government is going to cut deals on behalf of the American people, the American people are entitled to know what kind of a deal they are getting. That is the only way the public can hold agencies accountable.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the Truth in Settlements Act in July without any objections from any Democrats or any Republicans. The CBO found the bill wouldn't cost taxpayers a single dime. This is a nonpartisan, commonsense measure that simply brings more transparency to

critical actions the government takes on behalf of the public.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 566, S. 1898; that the committee-reported 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I am disappointed but not surprised that there is an objection to this request because although there is bipartisan support for this bill and only one outside group has raised concerns--that group is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful lobbying organization that represents the interests of large corporations. The chamber's concern about this bill demonstrates just how much the interests of these giant corporations that break the law conflict with public interests.

In its letter opposing the bill, the Chamber wrote that the bill ``would remove the incentive for investigation targets to settle and force the government to expend more resources to prove its assertions in court.'' Think about that for a second. The chamber's position is that agencies shouldn't disclose basic facts about settlement agreements to the public because if the public were aware of those facts, they would demand more accountability for corporate wrongdoers.

The chamber's position boils down to this: Let's keep the details of these agreements hidden from view so that corporate wrongdoers don't have to worry about any real accountability for their illegal actions. That sounds great if you are a big company that breaks the law, but I don't think it sounds great to the American people. I think the American people are tired of seeing large corporations break the law and then negotiate sweetheart deals behind closed doors.

While we will not be able to pass the Truth in Settlements Act this Congress, I will be reintroducing it in the next Congress, and I will continue to fight for the public to get access to the details of these agreements because we weren't sent here to work for big companies and to protect them from accountability when they break the law; we were sent here to stand up for everyone.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Maryland and the senior Senator of Vermont. They both show extraordinary leadership and we learn from them every day.

I am back on the floor to talk about a dangerous provision slapped in a must-pass spending bill at the last minute solely to benefit Wall Street. This provision would repeal a rule called prohibition against Federal Government bailouts of swaps entities.

On Wednesday I came to the floor and talked to the Senate Democrats to ask them to strip this provision out of the omnibus bill and to protect taxpayers.

On Thursday I came to the floor to talk to Republicans. Republicans said they don't like bailouts either, so I asked them to vote the way they talk. If they don't like bailouts, then they could take out this provision that puts taxpayers right back on the hook for bailing out big banks.

Today I come to the floor to talk about not Democrats or Republicans, but to talk about a third group that also wields tremendous power in Washington--Citigroup.

In recent years many Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington's corridors of power, but Citigroup has risen above the others. Its grip over economic policymaking in the executive branch is unprecedented.

Consider just a few examples. Three of the last four Treasury Secretaries under Democratic Presidents have had close Citigroup ties. The fourth was offered the CEO position at Citigroup but turned it down.

The vice chair of the Federal Reserve system is a Citigroup alum.

The Under Secretary for International Affairs at Treasury is a Citigroup alum.

The U.S. Trade Representative and the person nominated to be his deputy, who is currently an assistant secretary of Treasury, are Citigroup alums.

A recent chairman of the National Economic Council at the White House was a Citigroup alum.

Another recent chairman of the Office of Management and Budget went to Citigroup immediately after leaving the White House.

And another recent chairman of the Office of Management and Budget is also a Citigroup alum--but I am double-counting because he is now Secretary of the Treasury.

That is a lot of powerful people all from one bank, but they aren't the only way that Citigroup exercises power. Over the years, the company has spent millions of dollars on lobbying Congress and funding the political campaigns of its friends in the House and Senate.

Citigroup has also spent millions trying to influence the political process in ways that are far more subtle and hidden from public view. Last year, I wrote Citigroup and other big banks asking them to disclose the amount of shareholder money they have been diverting to think tanks to influence public policy.

Citigroup's response to my letter? Stonewalling. A year has gone by and Citigroup didn't even acknowledge receiving my letter.

Citigroup has a lot of money. It spends a lot of money, and it uses that money to grow and consolidate power--and it pays off.

Consider a couple of facts.

Fact 1: During the financial crisis, when all the support through TARP, FDIC, and the Fed is added up, Citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in bank loans. That is half a trillion with a t. That is almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank received.

Fact 2: During Dodd-Frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleagues Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman that would have broken up Citigroup and the other largest banks. That amendment had bipartisan support and it might have passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between Wall Streeters on Wall Street and Wall Streeters who held powerful government jobs. They teamed up and they blocked the move to break up the banks, and now Citi is larger than ever.

The role that senior officials from the Treasury Department played in killing the amendment wasn't subtle. A senior Treasury official acknowledged it at the time in a background interview with ``New York'' magazine and said:

If we'd been for it, it probably would have happened. But

we weren't, so it didn't.

That is power.

Democrats don't like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don't like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts. Yet here we are, 5 years after Dodd-Frank, with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for the middle class, do nothing for community banks, do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again.

There is a lot of talk lately about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. There is

a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect.

So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi. I agree with you, Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces.

If this Congress is going to open Dodd-Frank in the months ahead, then let's open it to get tougher, not to create more bailout opportunities. If we are going to open Dodd-Frank, let's open it up so that once and for all we end too big to fail--and I mean really end it, not just say that we did. Instead of passing laws that create new bailout opportunities for too-big-to-fail banks, let's pass Brown- Kaufman. Let's pass the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, a bill I have sponsored with John McCain, Angus King, and Maria Cantwell. Let's pass something, anything, that would help break up these giant banks.

A century ago, Teddy Roosevelt was America's trust buster. He went after the giant trusts and monopolies in this country. A lot of people talk about how those trusts deserve to be broken up because they have too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatens the very foundations of our democratic system.

Now we are watching as Congress passes yet another provision that was written by lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of this country, and it is attached to a bill that needs to pass or else the entire Federal Government will grind to a halt. Think about that kind of power. If a financial institution has become so big and so powerful that it can hold the entire country hostage, that alone is reason enough to break them up.

Enough is enough. Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism that we have seen in the executive branch.

Enough is enough--with Citigroup passing eleventh hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over, but everybody will come to regret.

Enough is enough.

Washington already works very well for the billionaires, the big corporations, the lawyers, and the lobbyists, but what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citi bet big on derivatives and lost? What about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail out Citi only 6 years ago?

We were sent to the Senate to fight for those families. And it is time, it is past time, for Washington to start working for them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to call on House Democrats to withhold their support from the omnibus spending bill until one provision is removed. The provision was slipped in at the last minute to benefit Wall Street. In fact, it was written by lobbyists for Citicorp. That provision means big money for a few big banks. It would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money--and when it all blows up, require the government to bail them out.

Just to be clear, I want to read the title of the part of the law that will be repealed if this provision is not stripped out of the omnibus. The title is ``Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps Entities.'' That is what is on the table to be taken out of the law.

Now, I am here today to ask my Republican colleagues who don't want to see another Wall Street bailout to join in our effort to strip this Wall Street giveaway from the bill. This is not about partisanship. This is about fairness. This is about accountability and responsibility. This is about preventing another financial collapse that could again wipe out millions of jobs and take down our whole economy.

If big Wall Street banks want to gamble with their own money, so be it. Let them take their risks with their own money, and let them live with the consequences of those risks. That is how markets are supposed to work. But they shouldn't get to gamble with government-insured money, and they shouldn't get to run to the government when the deal goes sour.

Opposition to government bailouts of Wall Street is not a liberal or a conservative issue. The current law, the one about to be repealed, was put in place years ago because after the 2008 financial collapse, people of all political persuasions were disgusted by the

prospect of ever having to use taxpayer dollars to rescue big banks from their own bad decisions.

This morning, Senators from both parties--Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, and David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana--called for this provision to be taken out of the spending bill. Here is what they said:

If Wall Street banks want to gamble, Congress should force

them to pay for their losses, not put taxpayers on the hook

for another bailout. Congress should not gamble on a possible

government shutdown by attempting to tuck this controversial

provision into a spending bill without having been considered

by the committees of jurisdiction, where it can be subject to

a transparent and rigorous debate.

Senators Brown and Vitter are exactly right. This provision has no place in a must-pass spending bill.

Conservative activists have jumped in as well. They are raising their voices today to say that this provision has no place in a must-pass spending bill. Here is what one front-page contributor on the conservative blog RedState said this morning:

I have no way to refute the basic point that Democrats are

making about the CRomnibus fight right now. In fact, I might

even go so far as to say they are right. . . . what possible

good faith reason can Republicans have for threatening to gum

up the whole works over doing a favor to Wall Street? . . .

generally speaking, if Nancy Pelosi is opposed to something

then instinctively I know I should be for it. Beyond that I

haven't the slightest clue why the proposed tweak to Dodd-

Frank ought to be anything resembling a hill the Republicans

should die for.

These conservative activists are right. If you believe in smaller government, how can you support a provision that would expand a government insurance program and put taxpayers on the hook for the riskiest private activities? If you thought the Ex-Im Bank exposed taxpayers to risk--even though it has never cost the taxpayers a dime-- how can you support a provision to prevent another calamity such as the one that cost taxpayers billions of dollars just 6 years ago?

House Republican leaders are moving quickly to try to jam this bill through today before their own Members have had a chance to digest this Wall Street bailout provision. The fact sheet that Republican appropriators sent around to their Members explaining the provision doesn't even describe it accurately. According to the fact sheet, the provision in question would ``protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their businesses, and hedge their production.'' Whatever you think about the bill, that description is flatly wrong. In fact, that description applies to yet another Wall Street reform rollback that the Republicans are pushing right now, which is attached to a completely different bill.

Now, I don't know if Republican leaders in the House are deliberately trying to confuse their Members into voting for a government bailout program or whether they just can't keep straight all their efforts to gut financial reform. Republican leaders are about to bring this bill up for a vote. So here is the bottom line. A vote for this bill is a vote for future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street. When the next bailout comes, a lot of people will look back to this vote to see who was responsible for putting the government back on the hook to bail out Wall Street.

To Republican leaders in the House, I would ask this. You say you are against bailouts on Wall Street. I have heard you say it again and again for 5 years. So why in the world are you spending your time and your energy fighting for a provision written by Citigroup lobbyists that would increase the chance of future bailouts? Why, in the last minute as you head out the door and a spending bill must be passed, are you making it a priority to do Wall Street's bidding? Whom do you work for--Wall Street or the American people?

This fight isn't about conservatives or liberals. It is not about Democrats or Republicans. It is about money, and it is about power right here in Washington. This legal change could trigger more taxpayer bailouts and could ultimately threaten our entire economy, but it will also make a lot of money for Wall Street banks. According to Americans for Financial Reform, this change will be a huge boon to just a handful of our biggest banks: Citigroup, JPMorgan, Bank of America.

People are frustrated with Congress. Part of the reason, of course, is gridlock. But mostly it is because they see a Congress that works just fine for the big guys but won't lift a finger to help them. If big companies can deploy their armies of lobbyists and lawyers to get Congress to vote for special deals that benefit themselves, then we will simply confirm the view of the American people that the system is rigged.

This is a democracy. The American people sent us here--Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They sent us here to stand up for them, to stand up for taxpayers, to protect the economy. Nobody sent us here to stand up for Citigroup.

I urge my Republican colleagues in the House to withhold their support from this package until this risky giveaway is removed from the legislation. It is time for all of us to stand up and fight.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask a fundamental question: Who does Congress work for? Does it work for the millionaires, the billionaires, the giant companies with their armies of lobbyists and lawyers, or does it work for all the people?

People are frustrated with Congress and part of the reason, of course, is gridlock, but mostly it is because they see a Congress that works just fine for the big guys, but it won't lift a finger to help them. If big companies can deploy armies of lobbyists and lawyers to get the Congress to vote for special deals that benefit themselves, then we simply confirm the view of the American people that the system is rigged.

Now the House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful. The House is about to vote on a budget deal--a deal negotiated behind closed doors--that slips in a provision that would let derivative traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system. These are the same banks that nearly broke the economy in 2008 and destroyed millions of jobs, the same banks that got bailed out by taxpayers and are now raking in record profits, the same banks that are spending a whole lot of time and money trying to influence Congress to bend the rules in their favor.

You will hear a lot of folks say that the rule that will be repealed in the omnibus is technical and complicated and you shouldn't worry about it because smart people who know more than you do about financial issues say it is no big deal. Well, don't believe them. Actually, this rule is pretty simple. Here is what it is called--the rule the House is about to repeal, and I am quoting from the text of Dodd-Frank, is entitled ``Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps Entities.''

What does it do? The provision that is about to be repealed requires the banks to keep separate a key part of their risky Wall Street speculation so there is no government insurance for that part of their business. As the New York Times has explained, ``the goal was to isolate risky trading and to prevent government bailouts'' because these sorts of risky trades, called derivatives trades, were ``a main culprit in the 2008 financial crisis.''

We put these rules in place after the collapse of the financial system because we wanted to reduce the risk that reckless gambling on Wall Street could ever again threaten jobs and livelihoods on Main Street. We put this rule in place because people of all political persuasions were disgusted at the idea of future bailouts. And now, no debate, no discussion, Republicans in the House of Representatives are threatening to shut down the government if they don't get a chance to repeal it.

That raises a simple question: Why? If this rule brings more stability to our financial system and helps prevent future government bailouts, why in the world would anyone want to repeal it, let alone hold the entire government hostage in order to ram through this appeal? The reason, unfortunately, is

simple--it is about money and power. Because while this legal change could pose serious risks to our entire economy, it will also make a lot of money for Wall Street banks.

According to Americans for Financial Reform, this change will be a huge boon to a handful of our biggest banks--Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, and Bank of America.

Wall Street spends a lot of time and money on Congress. Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics found that in the runup to Dodd-Frank, the financial services sector employed 1,447 former Federal employees to carry out their lobbying efforts, including 73 former Members of Congress.

According to a report by the Institute for America's Future, by 2010, the six biggest banks and their trade associations employed 243 lobbyists who once worked in the Federal Government, including 33 who worked as chiefs of staff for Members of Congress and 54 who worked as staffers for the banking oversight committees in the House and Senate. That is a lot of former government employees and Senators and Congressmen pounding on Congress to make sure that the big banks get heard.

It is no surprise that the financial industry spent more than $1 million a day lobbying Congress on financial reform, and that is a lot of money that went to former elected officials and government employees. Now we see the fruits of those investments.

This provision is all about goosing the profits of the big banks. Wall Street is not subtle about this one. According to documents reviewed by the New York Times, the original bill that is being incorporated into the House spending legislation today was literally written by Citigroup lobbyists who ``redrafted'' the legislation, ``striking out certain phrases and inserting others.'' It has been opposed by current and former leaders of the FDIC, including Sheila Bair, a Republican who formerly chaired the agency, and Thomas Hoenig, the current vice chairman of the agency. For those who are keeping score, this is the agency that will be responsible for bailing out Wall Street when their risky bets go south.

I know that House and Senate negotiators from both parties have worked long and hard to come to an agreement on the omnibus spending legislation, and Senate leaders deserve great credit for preventing the House from carrying out some of their more aggressive fantasies about dismantling even more pieces of financial reform, but this provision goes too far. Citigroup is large and powerful, but it is a single, private company. It should not get to hold the entire government hostage to threaten a government shutdown in order to roll back important protections that keep our economy safe. This is a democracy, and the American people didn't elect us to stand up for Citigroup, they elected us to stand up for all the people.

I urge my colleagues in the House--particularly my Democratic colleagues whose votes are essential to moving this package forward--to withhold support from it until this risky giveaway is removed from the legislation. We all need to stand and fight this giveaway to the most powerful banks in this country.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I rise today to honor a departed friend and committed public servant, Tom Menino. He was a devoted husband to Angela, loving father to Susan and Tom Junior, and adoring grandfather to six grandchildren.

For 20 years Tom served as mayor of Boston and led the resurgence of our city. He believed in economic growth and building communities, fighting for hospitals, scientific research, and innovation, while simultaneously strengthening our neighborhoods, expanding our parks, and knitting diversity into a community of equals.

Mayor Menino succeeded because he knew all along that our fortunes depend on our working together as one people, one community, one Boston, and he did everything he could to create that united Boston.

Reports are that Mayor Menino had personally met more than half the residents of Boston, and we believe it. In our happy moments--Red Sox championships--and in our darkest moments--when smoke arose at Copley Square--we knew we could always count on Tom Menino to be there.

Mayor Menino's Boston lived up to the vision of its founders: a city that all eyes can see is a model for the country and for the world.

On behalf of a grateful people, I urge my colleagues to come together to pass a resolution that was introduced only yesterday by Senator Markey and me celebrating the life of Mayor Tom Menino.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to commend all of the incredible work that the Senator from Michigan has done on the ``fair shot'' agenda, how she really has been out there working hard for families across this country. For middle-class families, for working families, for people who are just trying to get a fair shot, and on education she has been a tremendous leader. It has been a real privilege to have this opportunity to work with the Senator from Michigan. I know the Senator from Michigan and I are going to keep working on this set of issues.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to allow a debate and vote on the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. Some 40 million Americans are dealing with student loan debt, and many of them are drowning in it.

A quarter of all Federal student loan borrowers are behind on their payments. Student loan debt is dragging down our young people, and it is dragging down the economy. It is keeping borrowers from buying homes, moving out on their own, buying cars and opening small businesses.

In June the Senate voted on a proposal to allow borrowers to refinance their existing student loans down to the interest rates offered to new borrowers. These are the same rates that nearly every Republican in the House and the Senate voted just last summer to offer to new borrowers. This refinancing bill would not add a single dime to the deficit. It is fully paid for by closing the tax loophole that right now lets millionaires and billionaires pay less in taxes than middle-class families. The vote on our student loan refinancing proposal asks Senators to make a simple choice: protect billionaires from paying their fair share of taxes or protect student loan borrowers who work hard to get an education and are struggling to stay afloat; protect the billionaires who have already made it big or help young people who are still trying to build a future.

A majority of the Senate, including every Democrat, every Independent, and three Republicans sided with students in support of moving forward on this bill, but the rest of the Republicans blocked it. We heard a lot of excuses from those that oppose the bill.

Some Republicans suggested that the benefit for our young people on this bill is small. I disagree. Putting billions of dollars in Federal student loan profits back into the pockets of Americans who worked hard to get an education is not small. Saving millions of Americans hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in excessive student-loan interest payments is not small. If the Republicans think the benefit is too small, then work with us to offer amendments to this bill and give students a bigger break but don't refuse to even debate the bill.

Some Republicans suggested that the $1.2 trillion in outstanding debt just isn't a big deal, that we should focus on rising college costs instead. Yes, the rising cost of college is a terrible problem but so are the outstanding loans at 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent, and even higher. We need to fix both problems and not play rope-a-dope politics and say we can't fix this because we haven't fixed that yet.

Millions of young people are just stuck. They can't buy homes, they can't buy cars, they can't save for retirement, they can't do the things that would help this economy grow--all because they are struggling under the weight of student loan debt.

If Senators think we should do more than just refinancing, more to improve college accountability and to reduce the future costs for students, then work with us to offer amendments, but don't refuse to even debate the bill.

Some Republicans don't like that this proposal is paid for by closing tax loopholes. If Senators don't like that, if they have other ideas, then they should offer amendments. But don't refuse to even debate this bill.

Some Republicans even suggested that Democrats don't want this bill to pass. That is just plain ridiculous. Only in Washington can you vote against something, and then when it doesn't pass, you blame the people who voted for it.

These excuses don't fool anyone. They don't fool the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed petitions, attended rallies, and called their Senators asking for a vote on this bill.

This is not complicated. Senators can make a choice. It is a choice that raises a fundamental question of who this place works for. Does it work for those who can hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists who want to protect loopholes in the Tax Code to get more advantages for millionaires and billionaires? Does it work for the big banks with their armies of lobbyists who just want to maximize student loan profits? Does it work for young people who worked hard, who played by the rules, who got an education, and who are trying to build a future for themselves and their families?

We are just a few votes away from breaking the Republican filibuster and moving forward to debate this bill. I urge my Republican colleagues to allow a vote and to let us debate and pass this bill.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2432

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 409, S. 2432, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, and the Senate immediately proceed to vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the Senator from Texas for his remarks. As I stated previously, there are 58 Senators who have supported moving forward to debate this bill. But it has not passed the Senate because of a Republican filibuster. I welcome Republican ideas to address the exploding student debt crisis. For months Senator Stabenow, others, and I have reached out to our colleagues to put ideas forward so that we could have a real debate. But allowing an unlimited number of amendments on any topic forever is not a reasonable way forward on a student loan debt refinancing bill.

We face a student debt crisis now. We need to act on it now. If my colleague from Texas is not willing to provide a reasonable path forward to debate, improve, and vote on this bill, then I object to his request and ask that he agree to my original request that we take up and pass this piece of legislation.

Mr. President, what is dysfunctional is a Republican filibuster of a bill on which 58 Senators want to move forward and debate. Allowing an unlimited number of amendments on any topic, going on forever, is not a reasonable way forward. We want to be able to debate the student loan refinancing bill. We want to be able to do it now. Young people are struggling and are counting on us.

Mr. President, I rise today to support an independent constitutional amendment offered by Senator Udall of New Mexico which would restore to Congress and the States the authority to rein in the enormous sums of money that are flooding into our political process.

As they built our democracy, the Founders feared the impact of concentration of power. John Adams, a Massachusetts native and the author of our State Constitution, expressed this ideal well. He said:

Power must be opposed to power, force to force, strength to

strength, interest to interest, as well as reason to reason,

eloquence to eloquence, and passion to passion.

Balance, said Adams, was critical.

But in Washington power is not balanced. Instead, power is concentrated all on one side. Well-financed individuals and corporate interests are lined up to fight for their own privileges and to resist any change that would limit their special deals.

I saw this up close and personal following the 2008 financial crisis when I fought hard for stronger financial regulations, and the biggest banks in this country spent more than $1 million a day to weaken reforms. But there are many more examples.

Big corporate interests are smart. They fight every day on Capitol Hill, every day in the agencies, every day in the courts, always with the same goals in mind--to bend the law to benefit themselves. The U.S. Supreme Court is doing all it can to help them.

Three well-respected legal scholars, including Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a widely respected and conservative Reagan appointee, recently examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the past 65 years. The researchers used multivariate regression analysis to determine how often each Justice voted in favor of corporate interests during that time. Judge Posner and his colleagues concluded that the five conservative Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most procorporate Justices in more than half a century--and Justice Alito and Justice Roberts No. 1 and No. 2.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this procorporate shift is the Citizens United decision. In this new Citizens United era, the Supreme Court has unleashed a flood of secret corporate money into our political system and emboldened a powerful group of millionaires and billionaires who can toss out checks for millions of dollars to influence election outcomes.

Earlier this year the Supreme Court gave them even more room to operate. Congress had long ago put limits on how much money one rich person could contribute to a candidate, a party, or a political action committee in an election. These commonsense limits were intended to preserve the integrity of our democracy and to prevent corruption or even the appearance of corruption, but the Supreme Court struck down those limits.

As Justice Breyer noted in his dissenting opinion, the Court's decision ``will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate's campaign.''

The impact of this line of judicial decisions is powerful. In 2012, about 3.7 million typical Americans gave modest donations, $200 or less, to President Obama and Mitt Romney. These donations altogether added up to about $313 million. In that same election, 32 Americans gave monster donations to super PACs. Thirty-two people spent slightly more on the 2012 elections than 3.7 million typical Americans who sent in modest dollar donations to their preferred Presidential candidate. When 32 people can outspend 3.7 million citizens, our democracy is in real danger.

This is an extraordinary situation. The Supreme Court overturned a century of precedent, voiding campaign finance restrictions passed by Congress and making it far easier for millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations to flood our elections with massive amounts of money. The Supreme Court is helping them buy elections.

We are here to try to reverse the damage inflicted on our country by these decisions. We are here to fight back against a Supreme Court that says there is no difference between free speech and billions of dollars spent by the privileged few to swing elections and buy off legislators.

We are here to fight back against a Supreme Court that has overturned a century of established law in an effort to block Congress from solving this problem.

I support a constitutional amendment only with great reluctance. Our Constitution sets forth the fundamental structure of our government, the scope of that government's power, and the critical limits on that power. Any change to its text should be measured, should be carefully considered, and should occur only rarely. But there are times when action is required to defend our great democracy against those who would see it perverted into one more rigged game where the rich and the powerful always win.

This is the time to amend the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. We were not sent to Congress to run this country for a handful of wealthy individuals and powerful corporations. We were sent here to do our best to make this country work for all our people.

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

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

Madam President, our Tax Code is tilted toward the rich and the powerful. Huge corporations hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers to create, expand, and protect every last corporate loophole. That is how we end up with a tax code that makes small businesses and restaurants and construction companies pay, that makes teachers and truckdrivers and nurses pay, but that allows huge American corporations to make billions of dollars in profits and not pay a single dime in taxes.

The Tax Code is rigged. Apparently, even this rigged game does not go far enough for some corporations. Those companies are taking advantage of a new move--a loophole that allows them to maintain all their operations in America but claim foreign citizenship so they can cut their U.S. taxes even further.

Here is how the loophole works. An American company merges with a

much smaller company located in a foreign country, usually a tax haven such as Ireland or Bermuda. As long as the shareholders of the foreign company own 20 percent of the newly merged company, our tax laws allow that new company to claim foreign citizenship. That means American companies can hire a bunch of Wall Street bankers and a bunch of lawyers, fill out some paperwork, keep everything the same in their operations, and dodge their U.S. taxes.

Tax lawyers call this process a corporate inversion, but do not let that bland name fool you. These companies are renouncing their American citizenship, turning their backs on this country simply to boost their profits. They are taking advantage of all the good things our government helps provide--educated workers, roads and bridges, a dependable court system, patent and copyright protections--and then running out on the bill.

If a person did that, we would call them a freeloader. We would insist that they pay their fair share. That is exactly what our tax laws do for people who renounce their American citizenship. Even if they do not sell their property in the United States, when they renounce their citizenship, we treat them as if they had sold it. If they try to send money back to a U.S. citizen, we tax that amount too. And if someone attempts to evade their tax obligations by renouncing their American citizenship, we bar them from coming back to this country.

For a person who does not want to pay a fair share, our message is clear: You can renounce your citizenship but do not come back and expect the rest of us to pick up the tab. But we do not do that for corporations. Corporations can renounce their American citizenship--and make absolutely clear in legal documents that they are doing it to avoid their U.S. tax obligations--and not suffer any consequences.

In this corner of the Tax Code we have gone way past treating corporations as people. In this corner of the Tax Code we are treating corporations better than people. That is not right. That is why I have teamed up with Senator Levin and more than a dozen of our Democratic colleagues to introduce the Stop Corporate Inversions Act. The bill is simple. It allows American corporations to renounce their citizenship only if they truly give up control of their company to a foreign corporation and truly move their operations overseas. The bill would help protect $17 billion in tax revenue--money we could spend on Head Start Programs, on fixing our roads and bridges, on investing in medical research.

President Obama and Secretary Lew have spoken in favor of the proposal. I commend their leadership, and I join them in urging the Senate to pass this bill right away.

Some say wait. They say we should address this loophole in the context only of broader tax reform. I am all for a major overhaul of our tangled tax system, but make no mistake, more and more companies are rushing to renounce their citizenship to take advantage of this inversion loophole before we can get to full tax reform. We cannot allow the larger fights over tax reform to stop us from holding these freeloaders accountable.

I believe the Senate should act on this, but I am also realistic. Even if the Senate passes this bill today, we know that, like so many good Senate bills before it, it will face a tough road in the House. If we have learned anything from the past few years, it is that House Republicans will claw, scratch, whimper, beg or do whatever else it takes to defend every last corporate tax loophole.

But the administration does not need to wait for Congress. It can use its existing authority to slow down and reduce the attractiveness of these sham inversions right now. According to a paper published this week by Steve Shay, a Harvard Law School professor and former senior tax policy official at the Treasury Department, the administration could take action today to reduce the tax benefits of corporate inversions.

It could use its authority under section 385 of the Tax Code to prevent companies that renounce their citizenship from using any other loopholes to shield themselves from additional taxes that they would otherwise be required to pay. This will not totally solve the problem, but it would significantly reduce the benefits of corporate inversion. It would be an important first step toward treating companies that renounce America the same way we treat people who renounce America--as freeloaders who get cut off from other benefits.

America is a great place to do business because of the investments we have made together. In Massachusetts and across this country, we invest in public education, and our colleges and universities produce millions of skilled workers. We invest in infrastructure, in our roads and bridges and ports, making it easier for our companies to move their products across the country and beyond. We invest in scientific and medical research, giving our companies access to the most innovative and cutting-edge technology. We invest together to make America a place where any kid will have a chance to come up with an idea and turn it into the next great American corporation.

The companies that are pursuing these corporate inversions know all of this. That is why they are not actually leaving America behind. They just do not want to pay for it. Our achievements are not magic. They did not simply happen on their own or through dumb luck. America works, our government works, our democracy works because we all pitch in and do our part to build that which none of us can build alone, giving everyone a chance to succeed.

If these companies want to leave all of that behind, well, that is their right. But if they exercise that right, if they leave America behind, then they should not get to turn around and claim all of the privileges of being an American company. We have had enough of rich corporations taking whatever they want and expecting everyone else to pick up the pieces. The time for freeloading is over.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am here today to say happy birthday to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This week marks 4 years since Dodd-Frank was signed into law and 3 years since the consumer agency opened its doors.

The consumer agency was built to be a new kind of regulatory agency, one that would stand up for America's families, not for big banks or credit card companies.

The consumer agency was not popular with big banks and their friends in Washington. The financial services industry spent more than $1 million a day fighting tooth and nail against financial reforms and they vowed to kill the consumer agency before it was ever born. But thanks to the work of grassroots consumer groups across the country that worked very hard and got organized, we pushed back against the big banks' armies of lobbyists and lawyers, and we won. We succeeded in building a strong independent consumer agency with the tools necessary to protect consumers against the tricks and traps hidden in the fine print of mortgages, credit cards, and student loans.

Under Rich Cordray's leadership, the staff of the CFPB has made amazing progress since it opened. This little agency has already forced big financial institutions to return more than $4 billion to 15 million consumers they cheated, and it has helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints about their financial institutions. It has put in place rules to protect consumers from a range of dangerous financial products and to make sure that companies cannot put out the kinds of deceptive mortgages that contributed to millions of foreclosures.

Recently the CFPB shared stories from people all across the country who have reached out to the agency for help with financial issues. One of these stories is from Ari, an Iraq veteran from Hull, MA. Ari and his father Harry told their story to CFPB. While serving in the military, Ari took out a car loan advertised directly to servicemembers. The dealership promised Ari that he would be able to afford the loan, but after Harry read the fine print, he figured out this was a terrible deal. So Harry filed a complaint with the CFPB and the agency's investigation helped to uncover scams targeting men and women in uniform. Ultimately, the consumer agency ordered the auto lenders to refund about $6.5 million to the servicemembers they cheated, and to agree to stop these practices immediately.

This is just one example of how people are fighting back, using the tools of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is also an example of how the consumer agency is standing up for families who have been targeted by scams and unfair practices. Together families and the agency are starting to clean up the market for consumer credit.

Sure, there is a lot left to do. The consumer agency still has important rules to put in place regarding payday lending, debt collection, and arbitration clauses. The biggest banks are dramatically bigger than they were during the financial crisis, and there is still too much risk in our system and too much need for reform. We need to keep pushing for changes that will make our financial system more stable and more secure to protect consumers and to keep our economy safe.

Stories such as Ari's and Harry's show that the consumer agency works and that the agency empowers people. In a badly tilted financial marketplace, the agency is giving consumers a fighting chance. This week is an opportunity to highlight these accomplishments and a reminder of how we can make Washington work for families all across this country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, Republicans are on the attack once again, trying to put women's fundamental rights on the chopping block. I stand with my colleagues to fight back. Senator Patty Murray of Washington, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, and 40 other Senators have stood to sponsor new legislation to reverse the Supreme Court's shocking decision in Hobby Lobby, where the Court gave corporations the power to deny their employees access to birth control. We will vote on this legislation tomorrow morning, and I urge my colleagues to pass it without delay.

Right now, with millions of Americans still out of work and struggling to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, with 40 million Americans dealing with student loans, with millions of people working full time at minimum wage and still living in poverty, with the big banks getting bigger, workers getting poorer, and seniors struggling to make ends meet, Republicans in Washington have decided that the most important thing for them to focus on is how to deny women access to birth control.

I will be honest: I cannot believe we are even having a debate about whether employers can deny women access to birth control. Guys, this is 2014, not 1914. Most Americans thought this was settled long, long ago. But for some reason Republicans keep dragging us back here over and over again.

After all, the Hobby Lobby case is just the most recent battle in an all-out Republican assault on women's access to basic health care. In 2012 the Republicans tried to pass the Blunt amendment, a proposal that would have allowed employers and insurance companies to deny women access to health care services based on any vague moral objection. Democrats said no, the President said no, and the American people said no to this offensive idea.

But instead of listening to the American people, Republicans in Washington doubled down. Remember last year's government shutdown that nearly tanked our economy? That fight started with a GOP effort to hold the whole operation of the Federal Government hostage in order to try to force Democrats and the President to let employers deny their workers access to birth control. Well, we rejected the hostage taking. Democrats said no, the President said no, and the American people said no to this offensive idea.

But instead of listening to the American people, Republicans turned to their rightwing friends on the Supreme Court, and those Justices did what Congress would not do, what the President would not do, and what the American people would not do. Those Justices decided that corporations have the right to ignore the law and determine for themselves whether their employees can access basic health care coverage.

The Hobby Lobby decision is a stunning case. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent, the result of this case could be to deny ``legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.''

The case is the first step on a slippery slope that could eventually allow corporations to deny health care coverage to employees for other medical care including immunizations that protect our children from deadly disease, HIV treatment that saves lives or blood transfusions needed in surgeries.

The Hobby Lobby case is stunning, but not entirely surprising. Giant corporations and their rightwing allies fight every day in Congress to protect their own privileges and to bend the laws to benefit themselves. They devote enormous resources to the task. Sometimes we beat them anyway. We beat them when they tried to pass the Blunt amendment, and we beat them when they tried to shut down the government over birth control. But when corporations lose in Congress, they don't just give up. They know they can often turn defeat into victory if they can get a favorable court decision. So while they push hard on Congress, they also devote enormous resources to influencing the courts, trying to transform our judiciary from a neutral, fair and impartial forum into just one more rigged Washington game. Nowhere has the success of this strategy to rig the courts been more obvious than with the U.S. Supreme Court. Three well-respected legal scholars recently examined 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years, and they listed the top 10 most procorporate Justices in that entire time. The results? The five conservative Justices sitting on the Court today were all in the top 10, and Justices Alito and Roberts are numbers 1 and 2.

So it is no surprise that those five Justices banded together in the Hobby Lobby case to decide that corporations have more rights than the women who work for them. They decided that corporations are people who matter more than real living men and women who work hard everyday and who are entitled to the protection of our laws.

Now we can fight back against this decision and against the corporate capture of our Federal courts. We can fight back by appointing judges who are fair, judges who are impartial, judges who won't show up on any ``top 10'' list for putting a thumb on the scales in favor of big business. We can fight back tomorrow by passing legislation to overturn this terrible Supreme Court decision.

The proposed law, called the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act is simple. It does not require any person, any church, any house of worship, any faith or any religious nonprofit to endorse or provide insurance coverage for contraception. It does just one thing: It prevents ordinary for-profit corporations from ignoring the law and imposing their own religious beliefs on their employees by refusing to provide basic health benefits that are legally required. That was the law before Hobby Lobby, and it should be the law again.

Senators will have a chance to vote tomorrow, and I urge every Senator to do the right thing. But whatever happens, we have won this fight many times before, and I am confident that sooner or later we will win it again, because no matter how many resources the other side pours into this battle, they will never convince Americans that their bosses should be in charge of their most intimate health care decisions, and they will never convince Americans that corporations are people whose imagined rights are somehow more important than the health of real living, breathing people.

I have a daughter, I have granddaughters, and I will never stop fighting the efforts of backward-looking ideologues who want to cut women's access to birth control. We have lived in that world, and we are not going back--not ever.

Thank you, Mr. President.