Floor Statements

Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Madam President, I now ask for its second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. Monday, July 28; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks the Senate proceed to executive session and resume the consideration of Calendar No. 929, with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 5:30 p.m. all postcloture time be deemed expired and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination, and immediately upon disposition of the Harris nomination, the Senate execute the previous order with respect to Calendar Nos. 915, 916, 913, and 744.

On Monday, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate will vote on confirmation of the Harris, Mohorovic, and McKeon nominations. There could be up to five rollcall votes on Monday, but we expect several of these to be confirmed by voice.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, what is now before the Senate?

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2569, with the time until 11 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 11 a.m. there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed regarding the Bringing Jobs Home Act, followed by voice votes on the following three nominations: confirmation of Julia Akins Clark to be general counsel for the Federal Labor Relations Authority; confirmation of Andrew Schapiro to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic; and confirmation of Madelyn Creedon to be Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.

I understand that Senator Paul has an amendment that he wants to offer to this short-term funding bill. I'm talking about his amendment to permanently reduce the tax rate for repatriated income to 5 percent.

He has agreed not to offer that amendment here.

In exchange, we commit that when the Senate considers a long-term highway funding bill, Senator Paul will be allowed to offer and get a vote on his amendment then.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader with the concurrence of the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 468, H.R. 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act; that the only amendments in order to the bill be the following: Wyden No. 3582; Carper-Corker-Boxer No. 3583; Lee No. 3584; Toomey No. 3585; further, that each amendment have 1 hour of debate equally divided between the proponents and opponents; that there be up to 2 hours of general debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the

Senate proceed to votes on the amendments in the order listed; that no second-degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes; that no motions to commit the bill be in order; that upon disposition of the Toomey amendment, the bill be read a third time, as amended, if amended, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; further, that the Secretary be authorized to make technical changes to amendments if necessary to allow for proper page and line number alignment; further, that the amendments and the votes on passage be subject to a 60-vote threshold; finally, if the bill is passed, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 108, which was received from the House and is at the desk; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask that we now proceed to H.R. 4719. It is my understanding it is due for a second reading.

I would object to any further proceedings on this matter.

Mr. President, more than a century ago, a small drugstore opened for business in Barrett's Hotel in Chicago, IL. The pharmacist, not yet 30 years old, and a veteran of the Spanish-American War, borrowed $6,000 to open this drugstore. His name was Charles Walgreen. This was his first store but certainly not his last. As his chain grew, the pharmacies became a fixture in American culture--you know, the vintage image of a soda fountain, milk shakes, a drugstore counter. They would mix their own drugs to give pain medication and other products to people who came in that drugstore. This is how Walgreen's started.

Now, 113 years later, the Walgreen family no longer heads the company. But there are over 8,200 Walgreen's drugstores around the country. They still bear the Walgreen name. That company Charles Walgreen started is reportedly strongly considering a renunciation of its American citizenship and a move to Switzerland. Why? To avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Reestablished as a foreign corporation, Walgreen's would pay a smaller share of taxes. This practice is called ``inversion.'' It is a tax trick, a loophole. Of course, Walgreen's will not actually move to Switzerland. Instead, they plan to acquire a European company and officially make Switzerland home to their new headquarters, but in reality they will stay in Chicago right where they are now. That is because Walgreen's does not want to actually leave America. Why would they? Why would they want to leave America? We have the most sophisticated workforce in the world. Why would they give that up? America has the infrastructure that, although in need of updates, is still the most extensive in the world. It provides Walgreen's with the roads and transportation it needs to supply its stores. Why would Walgreen's give that up?

Why would they give up the fact that we have a legal system we can trust, that enforces business contracts and upholds intellectual property protections they need? They would not turn their heads and walk away from that. America has a Medicare system that pays for seniors to buy pharmaceuticals at Walgreen's. I am sure Walgreen's will not be turning away that cash; that is what it is, cash.

Let's not forget that Americans enjoy a law enforcement apparatus that protects the company's assets. Why would Walgreen's want to give that up? Our military, which is second to none, will continue to protect the country where all of those Walgreen's stores are located. I am sure Walgreen's would not want to give that up. Not to mention the fact that America is a pretty good place to live.

So why would Walgreen's executives ever want to move their families across the world? That would be foolish, would it not? Walgreen's leadership will probably stay right where they are now in their fancy homes in America. While they remain here, Walgreen's will still expect American tax credits, even as it dodges as much as $4 billion over the next 5 years in taxes. That is what inversion is all about.

Essentially what Walgreen's is saying is we love America. We love being in America. But we are not going to pay for it. The dictionary defines the word ``exploitation'' as ``the fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage.'' What a perfect explanation of what Walgreen's is going to do. What the Walgreen's company is doing sure seems like exploitation to me. After all, this is a corporation that made $16.7 billion from Medicare and Medicaid last year--$16.7 billion--and they are going to move overseas.

But, sadly, Walgreen's is not the only corporation jumping ship. Major American companies such as Medtronic and others have already announced plans to give up their corporate citizenship. Who will be next? A decade ago, the senior Senator from Iowa warned of ``unpatriotic companies that dash stash their cash.'' Now we are seeing this dash-and-stash scheme become common practice for corporations that do not want to pay their fair share of taxes.

In fact, the two largest transactions to move American companies overseas in history have taken place within the last month. When these companies reincorporate overseas, it is, simply put, unfair. It is unfair to the American taxpayer, to the American Government, and to many companies that refuse to engage in this deceptive practice.

Why should other American pharmacy chains such as CVS Caremark and Rite Aid be disadvantaged because Walgreen's balks at paying its fair share of taxes? To uphold our free enterprise system and ensure that American businesses are competing on a level playing field, Congress must close this loophole.

We have a new chairman of the Finance Committee. The senior Senator from Oregon is known to be a man who is fair and will make sure that people do not take advantage of others. He has made a commitment to me and anyone who will listen to him that this must change. It is going to start with the Finance Committee and start very soon. I have been encouraged by his statements. He has indicated he will work to close this loophole for these runaway companies.

The chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the senior Senator from Michigan, has also been leading on this issue. He has been talking about it for a long time. Two strong leaders--the senior Senator from Michigan, the senior Senator from Oregon--have locked arms and are going to do something about this.

Senator Levin's legislation, the Stop Corporate Inversion Act, puts a 2-year moratorium on inversions by U.S. companies. This moratorium will give Congress time to thoroughly and thoughtfully consider the issue. I do not need a lot more thought on it. I am ready to roll on this one. We need to get this done, and quickly. I will settle for the 2 years. I am frankly, though, open to all ideas. What I am not open to is the idea that this corporate exploitation of the American taxpayer is somehow acceptable, because it is not.

Today we are considering legislation that would amend the U.S. Tax Code to fight outsourcing, protect American jobs, and create job creation within our borders. The Bring Jobs Home Act, which ends senseless tax breaks for outsourcers, will offer companies a 20-percent tax credit to help with the cost of moving jobs back to America. Much like the Bring Jobs Home Act, ending this corporate citizenship scam will encourage American companies to pay their fair share. It will also let corporations know that cheating the American people with their tax trick is not a viable business plan.

Benjamin Franklin said this: ``Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, who have not wits enough to be honest.'' If corporations want to leave America, it is their right. But American taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill when U.S. companies want all the benefits of commerce in this country without having to pay their fair share.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republicans control the time from 3:30 to 4:30 today, and the majority control the time from 4:30 to 5:30 today.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony and documents in a criminal misdemeanor action pending in South Central Judicial District Court in Bismarck, ND. In this action, the defendant is charged with menacing and simple assault of a staffer in Senator Heidi Heitkamp's Bismarck, ND, office. A trial is scheduled for August 26, 2014.

The prosecution has requested the production of testimony from both the staffer at issue and another Heitkamp staffer who witnessed the event. The prosecution also seeks production of a video recording from a security camera in the Senator's office that captured the event. Senator Heitkamp would like to cooperate by providing such relevant evidence. The resolution would authorize those two staffers, and any other current or former employee of the Senator's office from whom relevant evidence may be necessary, to testify and produce documents in this action, with representation by the Senate legal counsel.

Mr. President, 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 move to proceed to Calendar No. 453, S. 2569.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, which will run until 10:45. The time will be divided in the usual form between the two leaders or their designees. At 10:45 the Senate will proceed to a series of three rollcall votes: cloture on Andre Birotte to be a judge in California; Robin Rosenberg to be a judge in Florida; and John deGravelles to be a judge in Louisiana. Following the cloture vote on deGravelles, the time until 12:30 will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. If cloture is invoked on any of the previous nominations, at 2:15 the Senate will begin a series of votes on those nominations.

Fair Shot Agenda

Over the past several months, Americans have heard Democrats speak at length about giving working families a fair shot. What do we mean by a ``fair shot''? A fair shot is about making sure Americans have jobs and good jobs. It is about ensuring that workers receive fair, livable wages so they can put a roof over their heads and take care of their kids and actually put food on the table, make the rent payments, car payments. A fair shot is the idea that each hard-working American deserves an opportunity to achieve a measure of prosperity. But it all begins with a job.

As Senators, it is imperative that we not only promote job growth but also protect the jobs constituents already have. That is why the legislation before the Senate, the Bring Jobs Home Act, is so vitally important. It protects American jobs and encourages future job creation within our borders.

Over the last decade, the last 10 years, our country has been hemorrhaging jobs. American companies have outsourced 2\1/2\ million jobs. Outsource--that means ship them overseas. Two and a half million jobs that were here are now overseas, but these losses could potentially skyrocket if we do not address the disturbing trend of outsourcing. Twenty-one million Americans, including 7 million manufacturing workers, are at risk of having their jobs shipped overseas at any time--the risk of losing their fair shot. Almost 150,000 at-risk workers live in Nevada. The home State of my friend from Kentucky could also be on the chopping block to the tune of 235,000 jobs. For the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey, outsourcing means the loss of 588,000 jobs in New Jersey.

When millions of Americans are looking for work in a recovering economy, few things could be more important than protecting good-paying middle-class jobs.

Every time an American company closes a factory or a plant in America and moves operations to another country, taxpayers pick up part of that moving bill. It is hard to comprehend that, but that is the way our law now exists. We want to change that. That is what the legislation before this body is all about. The Bring Jobs Home Act would end senseless tax breaks for outsourcers. It would end the absurd practice of American taxpayers bankrolling the outsourcing of their very own jobs.

The Bring Jobs Home Act also seeks to bring jobs back to America. This bill

would offer a 20-percent tax credit to help with the costs of moving production back to the United States.

In the last few years major manufacturers, such as Ford and Caterpillar, have brought jobs back to the United States from Japan, Mexico, and China. Why? Because we have such productive workers. There are a lot of other reasons, but that is the main reason. Smaller manufacturers, such as Master Lock, have moved facilities home as well. This is a trend we here in Congress should enthusiastically encourage-- American companies returning home to employ American workers. They should get a tax break to do that. That is what this legislation does.

The Bring Jobs Home Act is a commonsense strategy to bring back American jobs. To 21 million Americans whose jobs could be the next ones to move to China or Japan, the Bring Jobs Home Act is as serious as it gets. To the 2\1/2\ million Americans whose jobs have already been offshored, the bill stands to right a terrible wrong: Bring them back and get a tax benefit for doing that.

I hope Republicans in Congress will finally see the light and join us in giving workers a fair shot at a good, stable job. On this legislation, the Bring Jobs Home Act, I know Senators on the Republican side always say they want amendments; unless they get a guarantee of amendments, they will kill the bill. On that, let me just say what I always say: We want to do something; that is, get something done. We should do what we have done on highway bills in the past, what we did recently on terrorism insurance, what we did on the Workforce Investment Act, and what we have done here for decades. We should work on a list of amendments and a path on getting the bill done. If there is going to be no list, I have no alternative but to procedurally move forward and get this matter off the floor. That would not be good for American workers. So everyone should know my answer: We need to get a list of amendments and a path for getting the bill done.

Recognition of the Minority Leader