Floor Statements

Let me begin by thanking so many of my friends here: Senators Durbin, Carper, Hatch, and so many others. I must say to you, you have expressed your remarks, and they mean a lot to me. But they probably mean more to me than I think you know. They mean so much to me. Thank you for what you have said.

I would also like to begin by thanking the people of Montana. The people of Montana have given me the honor of representing them in the Congress for nearly 40 years. It is 39 now, and actually at the end of this year it will be 40 years. I want to thank President Obama very much for the opportunity to serve the American people as Ambassador to China.

I also want to recognize one of the best teammates and friends anyone could ever ask for, Senator Jon Tester. Thank you, Jon. There is nothing greater in life than the love of family. I have been an incredibly lucky man. I would like to thank my wife Mel, my son Zeno, his wife Stephanie. I would also to thank our children, Katie and Joey.

Mel, Zeno, Stephanie, Katie, and Joey, you inspire me daily. I am so grateful for each of you. I am so blessed to have Mel in my life. Her energy, her zest for life, her positive outlook, and her love have transformed me. I am the luckiest guy in the world because of Mel. Katie and Joey are clearly inspired by their mother. They are great kids, great achievers. I think the last grades I saw--one is in law school and the other is in college--they had all As. Why? Because they are inspired by their mother. That is why they do so well, in the best sense of the term.

My son Zeno is one of the best kids parents could ever wish for. I am so proud of him. He is so smart, intelligent, and decent. He is currently an assistant U.S. attorney, living in Helena with his wife Stephanie. I am proud of him. You may have read about that case where a lady pushed her husband off a cliff in Glacier Park, MT. He is the prosecutor in that case.

I am very proud of him. Again, an indication of how proud I am of him, I learned more about that case reading the papers than I did from him. He keeps his cards close to his vest and is such a decent, smart, effective guy.

Stephanie, his wife, has jumped right into life in Montana. She is so talented and special, and the Helena community is very lucky to have her.

Thanks so much to my parents Jean and John Baucus. I wish they were here today.

Growing up on a ranch in Montana, you learn the simple lessons, the measure of life. You learn to cherish the land. It gets in your blood. You work hard. It is humbling. There is so much you cannot control working on a ranch. You cannot control the weather, whether it rains or it does not rain. You cannot control the prices. It gives you a little perspective to feel philosophical about life.

On the ranch you are charged also with nurturing life, nurturing livestock, producing a small part of nature's bounty. You have an obligation to learn as a rancher.

It is also the Montana way to love the outdoors. We are outdoors people in Montana. We hunt, we fish, we backpack, we hike, we grow crops, we raise livestock, we mine coal, and we cut timber. I think Montanans are more outdoor people than any other people in the country. We love it. It becomes part of our soul. Montana writer Bud Guthrie said: ``Somehow I am part of it, a mortal partner to eternity.''

I grew up this way, and it shored up my belief that we all have a moral obligation to our kids and grandkids when we leave this place, to leave it in as good a shape or in better shape than we found it. That internal compass is also a lasting gift from my parents and their love of the land. My mom is one of the most special persons one could have the privilege to know. She had the class of Grace Kelly and the spunk and grit of Katherine Hepburn. She was a combination of them both--an intelligent, classy lady, always positive, always upbeat. She was so intelligent and so well read. She even read more books than I did. I would come home at night and say: Mom, what are you reading?

She would tell me all about the book. One she was reading was President Obama's second book, which he wrote when he was a Senator. What do you think about that, mom?

Oh, it is a pretty good book. It has something to say. It is a little long, though.

Anyway, she wrote a note to the President and told him that she liked it. He wrote back, and they became pen pals. It was very nice.

Someone asked me last week what my mother would have thought of all this. She would have been incredibly excited and fascinated with the adventure ahead. Although I miss her every day--in fact, I talked to her every day at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That hour goes by daily, but I keep thinking of her. She is always on my mind, as is my father. He loaded bombs on airplanes in Europe during World War II. A product of the Great Depression, he instilled in me the values of hard work, humility, and good faith. He worked me hard on the ranch, stacked a lot of hay, a lot of fencing. I know why he did it--for the right reasons. I did not complain because I knew that he was trying to raise me in the way that he hoped would help me later in life.

He was also such a decent person. No one ever spoke an ill word of my father--ever--such a rock solid character. The Republican Party in Montana asked him to run for Governor. He would not have anything to do with it. He did not care about that politics stuff. He was a rancher and liked what he was doing--ranching. I was so blessed to have such great parents.

Now 52 years ago, I was full of youthful idealism and curiosity about life beyond the ranch. I am sure it was caused somewhat by my parents. As a college student at Stanford, I decided to take a year off from my studies between my junior and senior year. I grabbed a knapsack and I hitchhiked around the world for 1 year. It was June-August 1962 to about August-September 1963.

I set out to visit countries I had only imagined--India, Japan, and China, to name a few. Before I departed, I had never thought about a life in public service. But that trip opened my eyes. It charted my course. I realized how people across the globe were interconnected. We are all in this together.

I saw the indispensable role that America plays as a leader on the world stage. It was so obvious. I knew right where I was, in the middle of the then-Belgian Congo, and I had an epiphany. All this realization hit me that we are so connected, that our natural resources are diminishing. Somehow we have to work better together if we are going to have better lives, not only for ourselves but for everyone on the globe. We are so connected.

The world is getting smaller. Our natural resources, in fact, are diminishing. We have to find a way to work better together. I returned home with a commitment to a career where I could improve the lives of my fellow Montanans and of all Americans. I would not be standing here today had it not been for that trip where I hitchhiked around the world, probably the most defining era of my life.

It was by far the most influential, and that 1 year set into motion a series of opportunities to serve that I would never have dreamed would take me back to China to represent the United States 50 years later. When I first ran for statewide office in 1973, no one knew me from Adam. I had been away from the State for many years.

I needed some advice. I had met Mike Mansfield when I was in high school. Instantly there was a man I totally respected and honored. He planted the seed, I know, for later interest in public service. It was not a defining moment, but I could tell at the time. He told me I should run; I should go back home and serve. I was then working at the SEC, just a short distance from here.

If I wanted to run for Congress, he said, it would take a lot of hard work, a lot of shoe leather, and a little bit of luck. I took his advice literally. I wore out as much shoe leather as I knew how. I walked the entire length of the State of Montana from Gardiner in the south--Gardiner is next to Yellowstone Park--up to the Yaak, a remote part of Montana near the Canadian border.

I got to know so many great people who later put me to work for them in the House. It was right in the middle of the Watergate political scandal. I joined a congressional class determined to restore good faith and trust in government, a terrific bunch of folks. They were just great, the ``Watergate class.''

I think of my friends Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin, Paul Simon, Henry Waxman, and George Miller, to name a few. It was a great class. They were running for office and serving for the right reasons.

When I hitchhiked around the globe as a young man, I also realized that no country has a monopoly on religion, culture or virtue. We are all together. We are all in this together. All people basically have the same dreams for their families--to put food on the table, to make ends meet, to take care of the kids, health care they could afford, and a clean environment for their families to explore and enjoy.

The Senate can make people's dreams a reality. We are so lucky as Americans to have this institution under our Constitution written by our very perceptive forefathers. It offers what few institutions in the world can boast--the opportunity to make a difference when history calls.

One of the greatest privileges I have had in this job is having one of the best staffs on the Hill. They are sitting behind me--some of them. They are terrific. They have always been ready with big ideas and dedication to answer history's call. If there is a vanguard of vision, my staff has been in it.

I might say, parenthetically, I am very proud of my staff for another reason. My office has spawned about six marriages. A woman or a man working in my office who didn't know each other until they started working in my office got together and got married--six times--and they have all worked but for one. I don't know, but maybe I worked them too hard or maybe not hard enough. Whatever the reason, over the years after they were married, to see their kids, it has been terrific. It meant so much to me.

How many people have served since the time I have been here? The answer is 1,423 folks have worked on behalf of Montanans and on behalf of Americans, each person making a positive difference to the lives of others.

I thank them all very much.

In the years I have been in the Senate, we voted to send our sons and daughters to fight wars overseas, to protect our national security. I think the strongest human instinct is self-preservation. When you come from a beautiful place such as Montana, and from the wonderful people of our State, you will stop at nothing to defend them.

Montana has a tradition of answering the call to serve. As a matter of fact, more Montanans have volunteered for service per capita than nearly any state in the Nation.

My own nephew Phillip left college to enlist in the Marines. Before long he was far away in Anbar province serving our country. I loved Phillip as a father. His fellow marines looked to him for support, counsel, advice, and leadership as they faced many firefights. He made lance corporal in record time. He gave his life to our Nation and then returned to the family ranch for the very last time.

Phillip, like each one of the fallen heroes who bore our battles, left behind big dreams undone and countless broken hearts. Dust to dust--we still shudder.

President Lincoln concluded his second inaugural address with a call for the Nation to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' Lincoln's commitment remains our sacred duty today.

In the Senate we have made progress. We enacted tax credits for businesses that hire veterans and enacted a new GI bill. In the past 10 years Congress has doubled support for the VA. That is an investment of which we should be proud. Someone once wrote: ``In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.'' It is important we remember that. We make the tough votes to authorize war, and we must also find the courage to band together so that our troops return to a nation that honors their service.

Of all the bills that I have worked on, there are two that stand out. In 2010 we took the Montana National Guard's model of improved PTSD screening and expanded it nationwide. That concept of very meaningful PTSD screening began in Montana with the Montana National Guard. It worked so well I got it in the defense bill, and it is now being enacted nationwide to make sure we do the very best to protect our kids who are coming home.

The new screenings have resulted in more than 800,000 servicemembers who

have received personal and private one-on-one attention from a trained health care provider--both before and after deployment. Make no mistake; these screenings are saving lives.

I am also proud of another life-saving bill, the Affordable Care Act. It has been almost 4 years since President Obama signed that act into law, and in that time the law has done more than any other in the past half century to expand access to health coverage. It has provided 71 million Americans free preventive service. More than 6 million seniors have received discounts on vital prescription drugs.

More than 3 million young people have peace of mind knowing they will be allowed to stay on their parents' health plans. I am especially proud that now no child will ever be denied health care coverage because they had been sick or had a preexisting condition.

It has been a tough road. It has been a challenge I am proud to have taken on. While the debate over the law continues, I am proud to stand for it because it is helping millions of Americans.

Take Julie from Helena. Julie wrote to me that she is self-employed and finally able to get access to affordable, quality health care coverage because of the ACA.

John, from Missoula, has a daughter who survived ovarian cancer. Thanks to the ACA, she was able to stay on her parents' insurance and win her battle against cancer.

I am very proud of the role I played in helping to make health care more accessible and more affordable to many Americans.

In this Chamber there are brilliant men and women. With great respect to my colleagues, I insist that, in the most important respect, Senators are just ordinary people--big, not-so-big, tall, short, men and women. We are just people.

It is only through the extraordinary institution of the Senate that the ordinary people have the power to make life better for all Americans. We belong to something bigger than ourselves. When I first came to the Senate, Senators from opposing parties actually had lunch together in the private Senate dining room on the floor below the Chamber. It was called the inner sanctum.

In those daily rituals we learned about each other's families, home States, and developed real friendships. Senators dined together--no spouses, no staff, only Senators from both sides of the aisle. We compared notes, talked about our kids, and talked about our family. We talked about legislation, and we got to know each other. It was wonderful getting to know each other, to build trust, confidence, and understanding. It was the backbone of respect that we all relied upon.

Those friendships provided a refuge from the political firestorms and common ground to turn to after the wrangling over the disagreements of the day.

Now schedules are packed with caucus meetings and political fundraisers. The Senate is losing the spirit of friendship and forgiveness that, in the words of Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, ``is the final oil of harmony in all human relations and which rests upon the contrite recognition that our actions and attitudes are inevitably interpreted in a different light by our friends as well as foes than we interpret them.''

Friendship and forgiveness, that is the oil of human relations that brings us together. That private Senate dining room now carries only the echoes of the friendships once forged at its tables, and we are poorer for it. Yet there is nothing inevitable about this trend. The hope of this body lies in individual Senators. The heart set upon solutions to problems will win over the heart devising traps for political gain.

It is my honor to have friendships that formed the basis for solving some of the Nation's most difficult problems. I will never forget working together with the late Senator John Chafee on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

I worked with John for years before finding out he was an amazing war hero, decorated for his service in Korea. He didn't tell us that. It took years before I learned what a hero he was, a self-effacing kind of guy. Few people knew about his war record because he didn't brag about it or use it for political gain. He served because he believed in it, not because he thought he could benefit from it. Without a doubt, we need more John Chafees in the world.

Between 1989 and 1990, we sat together in a small room off the Senate floor, facing wave after wave of unhappy Senators--sometimes until 1 or 2 in the morning. He was the ranking Republican member of the EPW Committee. I became chairman of the Environmental Protection Subcommittee.

Together we met with our colleagues ironing out the compromises on acid rain, ozone depletion, air quality permits, and scores of other issues. Senator Chafee later became chairman of the full committee. We had our disagreements, but by-and-large under Senator Chafee's chairmanship I recall an oasis of civility.

That friendship helped us to pass the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. I am very proud of that effort. I was chairman of the committee at that time, and we finally got it.

It is a small point, but I always respected that he never raised his voice. He was always civil, always decent, always positive, upbeat, and trying to find a solution. John never lost his temper. He listened carefully to the other person's point of view.

He was a paragon of the Senate--as is my good friend from Iowa Chuck Grassley.

Chuck and I began our friendship by deciding to meet weekly face-to- face in his office or my office. It turned out to be 5:30 p.m. every Tuesday. We would bring our staffs together. Pretty soon our staffs were talking to each other. The health care staff after a while started talking to each other and our trade staff started talking to each other.

Heck, we were basically one office. If you were a fly on the wall, you would think this was one office where people were trying to get together to solve problems.

Chuck is a Republican; I am a Democrat. We have differences, but our goal is to solve the problems and find solutions while adhering to our principles.

Our friendship led to a culture of respect and honesty in the Senate Finance Committee that helped us pass important agreements of other bills to expand trading opportunities with the rest of the world. I am especially proud of our work together to successfully shepherd the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Senator Carper referred to it just a short while ago.

I thank my good friend Dave Camp. Dave is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. We have worked together a lot over the past couple of years on tax reform. We have bridged the partisan divide to help pass the most recent highway bill and the payroll tax cut. Dave is a super, super American and a wonderful man. I am very lucky to have him as a friend.

It has also been a terrific honor working with my good friend Senator Orrin Hatch.

Orrin, Dave, and I recently worked together to introduce Trade Promotion Authority legislation to make Congress a full partner in trade negotiations. In trade, as in so many important areas, working together is the only way to get the job done. The Senator is a real American--Orrin Hatch. He is the salt of Utah and cares about his State and his country. The Senator is a wonderful person to work with. I can't thank him enough.

Thank you, Senator Hatch.

In 1961, President-elect John F. Kennedy said: ``Our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, State, and local, must be as a city on a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.

If we are indeed a city on the Hill, it rests firmly on the bridges that Senators built when they faced even the deepest of divides. I mention my closest friendships across the aisle because it is those bridges that we lack the most today.

The epiphany I had as a young man hitchhiking around the world 52 years ago I believe is even more relevant today. Advances in technologies and communications have made us more interconnected as people than ever before.

The challenges of globalization bind us even more. Climate change--we are all in this together--terrorism, economic development, and education can

all be addressed with good faith and a commitment to finding common ground.

I am committed in my next chapter to meet these challenges. The United States-China relationship I believe is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world that will shape global affairs for generations. We must get it right.

Thirty-eight years ago, Mike Mansfield said farewell to this institution by simply declaring: ``There is a time to stay and a time to go.''

Now, as I face my own crossroads, I am humbled to have the opportunity to follow in his footsteps.

As America's ambassador to Japan, Mansfield worked hard to strengthen and improve America's relationship throughout history. I will try to do the same.

Many of you know I love to run. I actually have my eye on the Beijing Marathon--but, to be more honest, maybe I will scale it down to a half- marathon, something a little shorter. When I think about my next endeavor, I am reminded of something a professional runner, Paul Tergat, once said:

Ask yourself: ``Can I give more?'' The answer is usually:

Yes.

I can give more; we all can. I thank President Obama for asking me. I am indeed energized to serve America in this new role and to look at this as my sprint to the finish.

I trust Montanans to choose wisely as they have so well with my friend, the great Senator from Montana Jon Tester.

My final message is not for my esteemed peers but for the young people chasing their dreams across the Montana Hi-Line, searching for meaning through the Yellowstone River Valley or climbing toward their future along the Rocky Mountain Front.

The headlines paint the picture that there is no honor in public service. I disagree. I think the greatest noble human endeavor is service--service to friends, service to family, to church, to synagogue. Public service. The most noble human endeavor is service. So I urge you young folks to take up that challenge that politics is not an honorable profession. It is more than honorable. It is an obligation to serve. And I urge you to follow and serve. Choose to serve others. For me, it has been the honor of a lifetime. I am so lucky. And be ready--because history is calling.

It is with deep gratitude and respect that I say for the last time, with full faith in the highest forms of the Senate, I yield the floor. But before doing so, I just have to say I am not going anywhere. I am just taking a trip, maybe for a year or two, across the Pacific--just a trip. I will be coming back because we all are together on different journeys that we take.

I thank all of you, my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember the life of a dear friend of mine, and Montana's, Art Ortenberg.

Art grew up in Newark, NJ, the son of a Russian upholsterer father and a Polish seamstress mother. As a boy, Art lived across the street from a public library, where he spent countless hours devouring its offerings. The local library was a second home to Art. It gave him the chance to expand his horizons and dream of opportunities and lives that he had never before imagined.

Art, with his wife of almost 50 years, Liz Claiborne, built a Fortune 500 fashion empire--the first to be headed by a woman. Art was utterly devoted to Liz. They were deeply in love and they were inseparable. Together, they made high fashion affordable and revolutionized the fashion industry. While Art and Liz may be known for their exploits in the fashion world, Montanans know, and love, them for their unassuming generosity and deep sense of community.

Art and Liz first came to Montana seeking a respite from the rigors of the business world in Montana's wide-open spaces. Once there, they made Montana their home.

Art and Liz loved Montana as deeply as any Montanan. And, as John Steinbeck famously recognized, it's difficult to analyze love when you are in it. To Art, the slow, switchbacking country highway on the way to his Triple 8 Ranch was ``a glorious, intoxicating drive,'' the road ``traversing [the] landscape in serpentine coils.''

I don't think anyone has so lovingly described Route 279's slow crawl over the Continental Divide, and it shows the depth of Art's affection for Montana.

But Art's deep love for Montana didn't stop at mere admiration for our outdoors--it spawned action. Indeed, Art and Liz were philanthropists in the true sense of the word: They loved the people and communities of Montana. They adopted Montana as their home, and they gave generously of their time, their energy, and their resources.

Art and Liz wanted to open doors for young Montanans in the way that the local library did for Art. Together, they started preschools and music programs in small mountain towns, saved local libraries from closure, and loaned money to a local timber mill so that it could make downpayments on new equipment. They encouraged our young people to take pride in their hometowns through the Montana Heritage Project, fostering a sense of community in a generation of students.

Art and Liz recognized the importance of providing our young people with an opportunity to dream and grow, just like that Newark library had done for Art.

Art and Liz also cared deeply about conservation, funding projects to restore the Blackfoot River, reintroduce endangered species, and conserve valuable habitat and public lands. They recognized that Montana's public lands are our greatest assets and the importance of preserving our outdoor heritage for future generations.

As Art once said, ``What we do here matters.'' He knew that few are as fortunate as he and Liz had been. Art and Liz gave to Montana's communities generously and quietly. They sought to leave the world a better place than they found it, and they pursued this goal without pretension. In fact, Art and Liz could often be found down at the Windbag Saloon in Helena, quietly eating cheeseburgers in an old frontier brothel.

Liz is buried at the Triple 8 Ranch in Montana, in an unmarked gravesite in a ``Liz Red'' urn. Art planned to be buried next to her, returning to rest in the State where they both gave so much to so many. I know he will be missed.

I thank Senator Rockefeller for speaking today on this important issue. I have always admired the Senator's hard work and dedication to provide health coverage not just to the children of West Virginia but children across the United States. He has been a real inspiration to me and many of our colleagues.

Back in 2007 and 2009, Senator Rockefeller and I worked together with fellow Democrats and Republicans to reauthorize CHIP. The legislation brought legislators together from both sides of the aisle because CHIP was not about politics, it was about helping kids. Even 10 years prior to that, the original legislation that created the Children's Health Insurance Program passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. CHIP has always been very popular. Bottom line is this program works. It works for children and it works for America.

Unfortunately, while this program has been authorized through the year 2019, the funding expires next year. I believe it is critical for the Senate to continue to fund CHIP beyond 2015 in order to continue to provide essential health coverage to our lower income children and pregnant women. I regret I will not be here to carry on the work of helping these families.

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

Mr. President, 52 years ago, in 1962, President John Kennedy signed the Trade Expansion Act into law. At the signing he spoke about the importance of trade to the United States and its partners abroad, on how it helps secure our preeminence in a global economy.

Here is what he said:

We now have the means to make certain that we build our

strength together and that we can maintain this preeminence.

His words still ring true today. International trade is a cornerstone of our economy.

I hope everyone listened to my good friend's words. He made very important points about statistics that I think most Americans are unaware of, and if they would think about it more, they would realize the importance of trade.

We export so much more now. Exporting is such a large percent of our economy and offers such good-paying jobs that, frankly, I am perplexed more Americans don't want to work harder to get trade agreements passed so we can export more and get more good-paying jobs in America.

I must say that today we have a bold plan to strengthen our trade ties with

nations across the Pacific and in Europe.

What is our goal? Our goal is to seize new export opportunities so that we can boost our economy and create jobs here at home. We all know the big to-and-fro here with unemployment insurance. The key is to have fewer people unemployed. How does that happen? More good-paying jobs.

But there is a big first step we need to take before we can act on our trade agenda. What is that? It is Trade Promotion Authority, otherwise known as TPA.

That is why this afternoon Senator Hatch and I introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014.

That is right. Our bill also addresses critical issues such as labor, environment, and innovation and for the first time currency manipulation. Our bill addresses it.

Senator Hatch and I worked with our good friend from the other body, the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, to carefully craft these negotiating objectives and ensure that Congress is a full partner in trade negotiations.

Our bill helps lay out in clear terms what Congress's priorities are for trade. It is our opportunity to tell the administration and our partners overseas what we must see in an agreement if it is going to be approved by Congress.

It boosts congressional oversight, increases transparency in trade negotiations, and it gives every Member of Congress the right to a strong voice in the process.

Madam President, I thank very much my good friend from Utah. As President Kennedy said 52 years ago, this is about working with our trade partners to build strength together. It is about maintaining U.S. preeminence. That is why TPA is so important--because it makes our job-creating trade agenda work, and it helps to secure our future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to ask my good friend from Ohio if he could expand on what I think is a very important point, and it is namely this: With the world becoming more competitive and with globalization, it is evermore important for the United States of America to strive ahead and to keep working to develop good products, good high-technology products, and to compete in the world. I believe, frankly, when we are treading water, we are sinking. We have to keep moving ahead if we are going to make products and boost incomes and help the American people.

That leads me to another point. If the Senator could tell us a little more and explain to, frankly, some people who may not realize this, what is involved in TPP. What is TPP? Of course, we need trade promotion authority in order to get TPP.

Isn't it important, isn't it critical, isn't it crucial that the United States include a strong Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement not only for economic reasons but also for geopolitical reasons to show to the world, to show to Asian countries that are wondering where the United States is--is the United States going to show up? Is the United States going to maintain its presence in Asia? What will happen if we don't pass trade promotion authority? How will that affect the Trans- Pacific Partnership negotiations, and what effect will that have on other countries in Asia and their perception of the United States?

My understanding is--and we know this better than anybody--that unfortunately President Obama was unable to travel to Southeast Asia to attend the ASEAN conference, and many people around the world are wondering whether the United States is going to show up anymore in Asia.

If the Senator could address how important is it that we engage countries in the Pacific as we negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership, including the economic reasons, but also if he could address the geopolitical issue, the degree to which it is important for the United States to negotiate a successful agreement and to be there, to show up.

Mr. President, if I might ask one more question very briefly, and that is this. One more opportunity here with trade promotion authority--with trade promotion authority, clearly we are going to get a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and without trade promotion authority, we won't. Other countries will go their ways in the Pacific and wonder, where is the United States?

There is another issue in addition to that. I wonder whether my good friend would agree with this. Not only does trade promotion authority enable our country to negotiate trade agreements with the Pacific-- TPP--but isn't it also true that it allows the United States, with the passage of the TPA, to negotiate with European countries? And doesn't that mean that between Asia TPP and TTIP with the European countries, that it is about 70 percent of world trade and is an opportunity for the United States to lead in the harmonization of trade provisions and regulatory provisions not only in Asia and in the Pacific but also in Europe? It is an opportunity to lead? And if we don't pass TPA, is the United States squandering a huge opportunity to lead here in a way that would raise productivity and raise incomes not just in our country but in other countries of the world?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, 52 years ago, in 1962, President John Kennedy signed the Trade Expansion Act into law. At the signing he spoke about the importance of trade to the United States and its partners abroad, on how it helps secure our preeminence in a global economy.

Here is what he said:

We now have the means to make certain that we build our

strength together and that we can maintain this preeminence.

His words still ring true today. International trade is a cornerstone of our economy.

I hope everyone listened to my good friend's words. He made very important points about statistics that I think most Americans are unaware of, and if they would think about it more, they would realize the importance of trade.

We export so much more now. Exporting is such a large percent of our economy and offers such good-paying jobs that, frankly, I am perplexed more Americans don't want to work harder to get trade agreements passed so we can export more and get more good-paying jobs in America.

I must say that today we have a bold plan to strengthen our trade ties with

nations across the Pacific and in Europe.

What is our goal? Our goal is to seize new export opportunities so that we can boost our economy and create jobs here at home. We all know the big to-and-fro here with unemployment insurance. The key is to have fewer people unemployed. How does that happen? More good-paying jobs.

But there is a big first step we need to take before we can act on our trade agenda. What is that? It is Trade Promotion Authority, otherwise known as TPA.

That is why this afternoon Senator Hatch and I introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014.

That is right. Our bill also addresses critical issues such as labor, environment, and innovation and for the first time currency manipulation. Our bill addresses it.

Senator Hatch and I worked with our good friend from the other body, the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, to carefully craft these negotiating objectives and ensure that Congress is a full partner in trade negotiations.

Our bill helps lay out in clear terms what Congress's priorities are for trade. It is our opportunity to tell the administration and our partners overseas what we must see in an agreement if it is going to be approved by Congress.

It boosts congressional oversight, increases transparency in trade negotiations, and it gives every Member of Congress the right to a strong voice in the process.

Madam President, I thank very much my good friend from Utah. As President Kennedy said 52 years ago, this is about working with our trade partners to build strength together. It is about maintaining U.S. preeminence. That is why TPA is so important--because it makes our job-creating trade agenda work, and it helps to secure our future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to ask my good friend from Ohio if he could expand on what I think is a very important point, and it is namely this: With the world becoming more competitive and with globalization, it is evermore important for the United States of America to strive ahead and to keep working to develop good products, good high-technology products, and to compete in the world. I believe, frankly, when we are treading water, we are sinking. We have to keep moving ahead if we are going to make products and boost incomes and help the American people.

That leads me to another point. If the Senator could tell us a little more and explain to, frankly, some people who may not realize this, what is involved in TPP. What is TPP? Of course, we need trade promotion authority in order to get TPP.

Isn't it important, isn't it critical, isn't it crucial that the United States include a strong Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement not only for economic reasons but also for geopolitical reasons to show to the world, to show to Asian countries that are wondering where the United States is--is the United States going to show up? Is the United States going to maintain its presence in Asia? What will happen if we don't pass trade promotion authority? How will that affect the Trans- Pacific Partnership negotiations, and what effect will that have on other countries in Asia and their perception of the United States?

My understanding is--and we know this better than anybody--that unfortunately President Obama was unable to travel to Southeast Asia to attend the ASEAN conference, and many people around the world are wondering whether the United States is going to show up anymore in Asia.

If the Senator could address how important is it that we engage countries in the Pacific as we negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership, including the economic reasons, but also if he could address the geopolitical issue, the degree to which it is important for the United States to negotiate a successful agreement and to be there, to show up.

Mr. President, if I might ask one more question very briefly, and that is this. One more opportunity here with trade promotion authority--with trade promotion authority, clearly we are going to get a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and without trade promotion authority, we won't. Other countries will go their ways in the Pacific and wonder, where is the United States?

There is another issue in addition to that. I wonder whether my good friend would agree with this. Not only does trade promotion authority enable our country to negotiate trade agreements with the Pacific-- TPP--but isn't it also true that it allows the United States, with the passage of the TPA, to negotiate with European countries? And doesn't that mean that between Asia TPP and TTIP with the European countries, that it is about 70 percent of world trade and is an opportunity for the United States to lead in the harmonization of trade provisions and regulatory provisions not only in Asia and in the Pacific but also in Europe? It is an opportunity to lead? And if we don't pass TPA, is the United States squandering a huge opportunity to lead here in a way that would raise productivity and raise incomes not just in our country but in other countries of the world?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the dedication of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Elementary School in Butte, MT. The school is marking 50 years since it became the first in the country to change its name in honor of President Kennedy. I would like to commend the faculty, staff, and students of the school and the entire Butte community on this important occasion. In January 1964, Senator Mike Mansfield spoke at the dedication ceremony for the school. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mansfield's speech be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I come to the floor today with my friend Chairman Wyden to express support for extending natural resource programs that are critical to communities across the country. This week the Senate passed a bipartisan budget resolution. In January we will return to consider legislation to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

This past October, Congress was able to extend critical payments to forested counties under the Secure Rural Schools, SRS, program for 1- year in a bipartisan fashion. Irrespective of the appropriations bill that we may take up in January, we now need to do the same for counties eligible for payments under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, or PILT. PILT is a permanently authorized program created in 1976 that since 2008 has received direct spending. It is an essential source of funding for local governments that cannot collect taxes from Federal land within their borders.

A long-term solution to provide stable direct funding for PILT and other natural resource programs that buttress rural economies, like SRS and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is our common goal. In the meantime, we remain committed to extending direct spending on PILT and look forward to finding an opportunity to do so in the first half of 2014. Does the distinguished senator from Oregon wish to express himself on these points?

Madam President, last week I had the opportunity to see Charles Dickens' classic ``A Christmas Carol.'' As my colleagues know, this is a morality tale that highlights the plight of the poor, the less fortunate, and the unemployed. In fact, when Charles Dickens began to work on ``A Christmas Carol,'' he was so upset with the plight of youth and children working in the mines in England, he started out to write about that in a novel that evolved into a tale about Christmas, ``A Christmas Carol.''

As I watched ``A Christmas Carol'' with my wife in Ford's Theater about a week ago, I was struck by the following line from the spirit of Jacob Marley. Here is what he said:

Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my

business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, was all

my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of

water in the comprehensive ocean of my business.

With that line, Dickens was advocating for those less fortunate and voicing his support for economic equality. Those words are most appropriate today at this time of year.

I come to the floor today with my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island Jack Reed to share our concerns about the weak labor market, those who have been unemployed for so long, and its impact on the Nation's 11 million unemployed. Senator Reed and I are especially concerned about those who have been without work for an extended period of time.

It has been 4 years since the end of the great recession, and while the Nation's economy has been slow to recover, steadily adding jobs, a large section of society is still out of work. Of the Nation's 11 million unemployed, a little over 4 million of our friends and neighbors are considered long-term unemployed. That means they have been without work for 6 months or more.

Most people who find themselves out of work are eligible to receive assistance from their State for 26 weeks, as they look for a new job. But, for far too many, finding a new job in a sluggish economy has been extremely difficult. When State aid is exhausted, Federal emergency unemployment insurance kicks in and helps families to help make ends meet. However, that safety net is now about to expire. It is about to expire in just a couple of weeks.

In fact, in less than 2 weeks, Federal emergency unemployment insurance will run out. On December 28, 1.3 million people will lose their unemployment benefits. These are people who are obviously hurting. If they don't have a job, they would love to find a job, and if they have a job, they are trying to make ends meet. They are understandably discouraged, unsuccessful at finding work.

We cannot cast them aside. We need to provide out-of-work Americans the security they need while they continue to look for jobs. We need to help them look for work--clearly--and put food on the table for their families.

Extending the jobless aid to the long-time out-of-work must be a priority for this Congress. With the House already in recess, we will not be able to extend emergency unemployment benefits before the end of the year. But it is my hope that when Congress returns, we can retroactively extend benefits.

At the same time, when we return next month, we need to explore long- term unemployment solutions. We need to jump-start policies that will grow our economy more rapidly and create new jobs. It has to be a dual track: Benefits for those unemployed but also assistance to find ways for more people to get jobs.

We all care deeply about this. I know no one who cares more deeply than my good friend from Rhode Island Jack Reed. He has been working diligently, looking at every possible solution to try to find a way to make sure unemployment benefits are extended.

That is why we are working together. This issue is under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, but Jack has worked very hard to ensure these Americans are not cast aside. Senator Reed and I will do all we can to try to find a solution.

I tip my hat especially to the Senator from Rhode Island for all he has done. He is a tireless advocate for a solution for those unemployed. Together, we will try, as Dickens said, to make the common welfare our business.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, I would also like to associate myself with the senior Senator from Washington, my colleague from Vermont, and my colleague from Montana. Our Montana servicer, the Student Assistance Foundation, provides vital services to Montana students by delivering financial aid education, scholarships, and grants. I am therefore pleased to know it is the intent of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee that not-for-profit student loan servicers will continue to play a role in the servicing market and will be permitted to compete for future servicing contracts.

Madam President, President Lincoln once said:

Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow.

The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real

thing.

It is my distinct privilege to rise today to speak on two nominees that are indeed the real thing--Justice Brian Morris and Judge Susan Watters. The Senate will soon take up both Justice Morris's and Judge Watters's nominations for United States District Judge for the District of Montana.

One of the most important responsibilities I have is providing advice and consent to the President on nominations to the Federal bench. I approach each vacancy with the same criteria--I want the best, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Justice Morris and Judge Watters are the best. Their quality of character and breadth of experience are remarkable.

Montana Supreme Court Justice Brian Morris is one of the brightest legal minds to ever come out of Montana. Justice Morris was born and raised in Butte, MT, and graduated from Butte Central High School. He earned bachelors and masters degrees in economics from Stanford University and received his law degree with distinction from Stanford University Law School in 1992.

Justice Morris's experience after law school is as varied as it is noteworthy. He clerked for Judge John Noonan, Jr., of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the United States Supreme Court. He spent time working abroad as a legal assistant at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague and as a legal officer at the United Nations Compensation Commission in Geneva, Switzerland. He also spent time in private practice, handling criminal and commercial litigation with the Bozeman, MT, firm of Goetz, Madden, & Dunn.

Justice Morris also served for years as the State's Solicitor General. He was elected to his current position on the Montana Supreme Court in 2004, and has demonstrated integrity, fairness, a steady disposition, and superb analytical skills on Montana's highest court. Justice Morris is known for his approachability, even-handedness, and down-to-earth manner. After all, he is from Butte. He can often be found reading to students at Smith Elementary School in Helena.

Justice Morris has commanded the respect of his colleagues at the highest levels of the law. For more than 8 years, he has served the people of Montana on the bench and in the community. His nomination is an extraordinary cap on an already remarkable career, and I have no doubt that he will continue to serve at the highest level. I congratulate Justice Morris, his wife Cherche, and their children Max, Mekdi, Aiden, and William, on this achievement.

In 1916, Montanans elected Jeanette Rankin to be the first woman to serve in Congress 4 years before women had the right to vote. We are especially proud of this fact. Judge Susan Watters, our second nominee, is another trailblazer we can be proud of. Not only is Judge Watters a respected jurist and dedicated public servant, but once confirmed, she will be the first woman to serve as a United States District Court Judge for the State of Montana.

Judge Watters was born and raised in Billings, MT, and graduated with honors from Eastern Montana College. Judge Watters raised 2 young daughters while attending the University of Montana Law School, receiving her law degree in 1988. Since then, Judge Watters has cemented her reputation as a skilled trial lawyer and judge.

After law school, Judge Watters served as Deputy County Attorney for Yellowstone County, handling civil and criminal cases. In 1995, Judge Watters entered private practice, taking hundreds of cases to final judgment in State and Federal court. In 1999, Governor Marc Racicot appointed her to sit as a State district court judge for Montana's 13th judicial district in Billings. Since her appointment, Judge Watters has been reelected 3 times, most recently with over 80 percent of the vote.

Judge Watters has tried hundreds of cases during her 14-plus years on the bench. She has heard civil, criminal, probate, juvenile, and family law cases. Her trial court experience is remarkable.

She further served her community by establishing the Yellowstone County Family Drug Treatment Court in 2001, the first of its kind in Montana. Its overwhelming success has made it a national model.

Judge Watters is known for being fair, hard-working, possessing strong analytical skills and an excellent judicial temperament. Her extensive trial experience as a practicing lawyer and trial judge will be an invaluable addition to Montana's Federal bench.

Judge Watters embodies the qualities that service on the Federal bench requires. She has served the people of Yellowstone County for over a decade, and I am absolutely confident that she will bring the same professionalism and dignity to the Federal bench. I want to congratulate Judge Watters, her husband Ernie, and their daughters Jessica and Maggie on this outstanding achievement.

Justice Morris and Judge Watters are supremely qualified. Their service is sorely needed. We have two vacancies in our State. We have three Federal district court judgeships. The vacancies that Judge Watters and Justice Morris will fill are both considered judicial emergencies. Chief Judge Dana Christensen, our lone active judge, travels over 300 miles round trip to hear cases. In fact, I just spoke to him yesterday, telling him we would be filling these positions in Montana. He said, Max, I am getting in the car right now to drive. What's the distance? I won't say the distance. It is a 4-hour drive to Great Falls, MT, from Missoula, so he could sit and hear some cases in Great Falls. Judge Don Molloy travels over 340 miles one way. That is greater than the distance between Washington, DC and Hartford, CT. He does that to hear cases. We need our replacements.

Justice Morris and Judge Watters embody the qualities Montanans demand of their Federal judges--their intellect, their experience, and integrity above reproach. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their nominations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thought I had voted on the last vote but apparently it was not registered. Had it been registered, I would have voted aye.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, John Adams, America's first Vice President--and second President--and whose bust sits right above us looking over the Senate every day, once said:

Facts are stubborn things. And whatever may be our wishes,

our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they

cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

It has been more than 3 years since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. In that time, its opponents have made every effort to misinform the American public about this law and the vital benefits it provides the American people.

But as Adams said, facts are stubborn things, and I want to make sure the facts about the Affordable Care Act do not get lost amongst the criticism and false claims.

So here are the facts.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 100 million people have received free preventive care, more than 7 million seniors have saved nearly $9 billion on prescription drugs, and 25 million people who lacked health insurance will finally be able to get the coverage they need.

The Affordable Care Act has also helped slow the growth in health care costs. National health care spending grew by 3.9 percent each year from 2009 to 2011--the slowest rate on record.

I can remember not too many years earlier the annual rate increase in health care costs was in the neighborhood of 6, 7, 8, 9 percent a year. It is a dramatic reduction.

That means we will save huge sums of money down the line. For example, the CMS projection of national health care expenditures in 2019 has dropped by $574 billion in 3 years. That is $574 billion in reduced projection of national health care costs in the year 2019.

While there is more than just the Affordable Care Act at work in those savings, it certainly has played a part.

The health insurance marketplaces are open for business, and every day we hear how the Web site healthcare.gov is working better. It is picking up steam. It is handling more and more consumers.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that--and I am quoting--``the number of applicants who dropped a plan into their virtual grocery carts was climbing at a rapid clip.''

Those are the facts. The Affordable Care Act is helping millions of people. It is improving millions of lives.

But frankly, I think the American people are a bit tired of hearing politicians argue over the law. I am sure every one of my colleagues has spoken at length about it here on the Senate floor or back home. I know I have.

I think it is time to change the conversation. I think it is time to hear from the American people--hear from them--about how they think the law is helping them. I think it is time to hear what the New York Times called the ``voices of quiet optimism and relief amid the uproar over the health law.''

Take these two stories.

Claire He is a college student whose parents have never been able to afford insurance. She and her brother lived most of their lives without coverage. She told the New York Times that if they got the flu ``we just stayed home and waited it out.''

But when Claire and her family sat down to look at their options under the Affordable Care Act, here is what they found: They found a high-quality plan that will cost them only $30 a month.

Claire said of the ACA's critics: ``I see so much negativity behind this. . . . But in reality there's a lot of families who are like mine.''

Then there is the story of Bruce Kleinschmidt, a lawyer who lives in Louisville, KY. Bruce had insurance through his employer until he stopped working full time.

Bruce is 61--not yet eligible for Medicare. In another era, his health problems would have made it impossible for him to find insurance. But using Kentucky's new health marketplace, Bruce found a generous plan that saves him $300 a month in premiums. Bruce called it a ``godsend.''

There are hundreds of similar stories in newspapers all across the Nation--the San Jose Mercury News, the Las Vegas Sun, the Hartford Courant, the Palm Beach Post, the LA Times, and many more.

Not only do we read these kinds of personal stories in newspapers, we receive letters with them every day. Here are a few examples from letters I have received from Montanans.

John wrote to my office with his family's story. What did he say? John's daughter recently beat cancer. She is under age 26, so thanks to the Affordable Care Act she is still covered under her parents' insurance.

And there is more. When she does turn 26, she will have a guaranteed right to coverage. No insurance company can turn her away because she had cancer. John said they are counting on the Affordable Care Act to help them find an affordable plan.

Marge wrote to say that the Affordable Care Act has been an enormous relief for her. She has battled emphysema for years--despite the fact that she is not a smoker. A doctor once told her she could never leave her job because no one else would ever insure her.

So for Marge, the Affordable Care Act means she can breathe again-- that she does not have to live in fear of losing her insurance or falling into bankruptcy because of her medical costs.

We all know--because many, many told us before the act--how many people went into bankruptcy because one of the leading causes of bankruptcy was health care costs.

Jillian wrote to say how excited she was to be able to shop for coverage in the marketplace.

Jillian is married, and she and her husband are expecting a child. But her husband's employer-sponsored plan does not pay for her coverage.

Here is what she wrote: ``I am looking to make a more affordable choice for me and my baby-to-be. . . . ''

Letters like these come in every day. They tell the stories of how the Affordable Care Act is working for them, it is helping them, and in the end that is what matters--not the punditry, not the polls, not the political points. What matters is that the law is improving the lives of millions of Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Employee Benefit Research Institute on their 35th anniversary. EBRI was founded in 1978 with the purpose of conducting research on employee benefit plans and distributing that information to the public. Their mission ``is to contribute to, to encourage, and to enhance the development of sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education.''

EBRI has fulfilled its mission and purpose for 35 years in a nonpartisan and unbiased manner. That is why EBRI's research staff is frequently asked to testify before Congress, including several times before the Finance Committee. EBRI produces trustworthy analysis on both health and retirement issues. EBRI does not take policy positions and they do not lobby--they provide us with just the facts without spin. When it comes to retirement and health policy, EBRI is an indispensable source of expert data. And that is why both Members and our staff on Capitol Hill depend on their expertise and reliability.

I salute EBRI and its staff for 35 years of exceptional work and look forward to their continued help in the future.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think it is pretty clear that this motion is inappropriate. This is not what we should be doing and how we should potentially change the act. Actually, the effect here is to disrupt implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is a law. It has been in place for several years. The Supreme Court has upheld it. Attempts to repeal it failed. I think the House has voted up to 20 times to try to repeal the ACA. They have all failed. The act is here. So the goal here is to make it work, make the act work. Then later on we can ask questions about what happened, why it didn't work, why wasn't implementation of the exchanges as good as a lot of us would have liked it to have been. Then find out who is responsible, et cetera. Right now it works.

The effect of this motion is severalfold. One, it will deny people having health insurance, people who otherwise would get health insurance. If you delay the individual responsibility requirement, it is going to cause a delay. People will not have insurance.

Second, it is going to increase the cost of health insurance for a lot of people. Why? Because fewer people will be signed up. The individual responsibility requirement will not be followed as much as otherwise would be the case. The result is fewer people will be in the insurance pool, and therefore prices will be higher.

Another consequence is it lowers the quality of health insurance, especially for those individuals who are seeking to be insured. They are going to have a lower quality product as a consequence of this request. It is an attempt to destabilize, it is an attempt to undermine the ACA.

I think for those reasons it is inappropriate and again is another effort to obstruct. We should not proceed in this way, so I object.

The famed author George Bernard Shaw once wrote:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the

unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to

himself.

A few weeks ago, lost among the headlines about shutdowns and showdowns was another very important news story. This story didn't receive big headlines. It didn't make the evening news, and it wasn't trending on Twitter.

Yet the story in the October 8 edition of the New York Times has serious implications for the future of our economy and our ability to adapt to the modern world. The eye-opening article discussed the merger of a California-based chip maker called Applied Materials. Applied Materials merged with a Japanese company called Tokyo Electron.

Applied Materials is one of the biggest companies in Silicon Valley, an industry leader with a global presence. They have more than 13,000 employees across 18 countries. Their headquarters, where they got their start 46 years ago, is in Santa Clara, CA. In addition to 8,000 workers in the Bay Area of California, Applied Materials has employees at research, development, and manufacturing facilities in Texas, Utah, Massachusetts, and in my home State of Montana.

Now, with the merger with Tokyo Electron, what is this all-American company doing? It is shifting its corporation, not to Japan, but to the Netherlands. That is right. This new American-Japanese company will be incorporated in Holland.

Why are they moving to the Netherlands? What is going on.

In the New York Times article on the merger, reporter David Gelles wrote:

Executives at Applied Materials highlighted a number of

advantages in announcing a merger recently with a smaller

Japanese rival, but an important one was barely mentioned:

lower taxes.

The merged company will save millions of dollars a year by

moving--not to one side of the Pacific or the other, but by

reincorporating in the Netherlands.

The article goes on to note that Applied Materials' effective tax rate will drop from 22 percent to 17 percent as a result of the merger. For a company that had nearly $2 billion in profit in 2011, that amounts to savings of about $100 million per year.

Mergers resulting in U.S. companies being owned by companies in tax haven jurisdictions such as Ireland, Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands, are a new spin on the old ``inversion'' problem, and it is becoming an increasingly popular practice.

The Times article highlighted the following additional examples.

Last year, the Eaton Corporation, a power management company from Ohio, acquired Cooper Industries from Ireland for $13 billion and then reincorporated in Ireland. The company expects to save $160 million a year as a result of the move.

In July, Omnicom, the large New York advertising group, agreed to merge with Publicis Groupe, its French rival, in a $35 billion deal. The new company will be based in the Netherlands, resulting in savings of about $80 million a year.

Also in July, Perrigo, a pharmaceutical company from Michigan, said it would acquire Elan, an Irish drug company, for $6.7 billion. Perrigo will also reincorporate in Ireland, lowering its effective tax credit from 30 percent to 17 percent, and saving the company an estimated $150 million a year, much of it in taxes.

Earlier in the year, Actavis, based in New Jersey, bought Warner Chilcott, a drug maker with headquarters in Dublin, and said it would reincorporate in Ireland, leading to an estimated $150 million in savings over 2 years.

It would be easy for us to attack these companies by calling them immoral and unpatriotic, but it is much more constructive to step back and ask: What's motivating these companies? Why are they moving their headquarters abroad? How can we keep them in the United States? How can we adapt to the world and fix the problem?

It is a very simple issue. Globalization has made America's Tax Code system out of date.

The United States is stuck with a 35 percent corporate tax rate--one of the highest in the world--and a maze of incentives that only an army of tax lawyers can navigate. Some of these tax incentives are extremely costly but are much less valuable to businesses than a rate reduction with the same price tag.

When U.S. companies look abroad, what do they see? They see other countries with more modern, more efficient, and more competitive tax codes. Then, what do they do? They reincorporate overseas by acquiring or merging with another business.

They are not necessarily breaking laws. In fact, many of these companies are following the rules that America's outdated, overly complicated Tax Code provides.

The United States is losing hundreds of millions in revenue as a result. Even worse, it is losing jobs. When headquarters moves abroad, good-paying jobs often go abroad too. We need to reverse that tide. We need to bring our tax system into the 21st century to make the United States more competitive. That is what tax reform can do. It can help America overcome the competitiveness crisis that is driving businesses and jobs overseas.

This competitiveness crisis was made very clear in a Harvard Business School study last year with the sobering title: ``Prosperity at Risk.'' This indepth report examined the risks that threaten to undermine U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. It also looked at what action we could take in the United States to restore our country's economic vitality.

Harvard Business School surveyed 10,000 of its graduates who live and conduct business worldwide. They asked about the challenges of doing business in America. These individuals are leaders on the front lines of the global economy. They are CEOs, CFOs, business owners, and presidents. They are personally involved in decisions about whether to hire, where to locate, and which markets to serve.

Unfortunately, these business leaders are pessimistic about America's economic future. They think America's prosperity--our success, our growth, and our economic status--is at serious risk. The vast majority of those surveyed, 71 percent, expected U.S. competitiveness to deteriorate over the next several years.

A survey found that the U.S. fared poorly when competing to attract business and pointed to increased competition from emerging markets. According to the survey: ``For the first time in decades, the business environment in the United States is in danger of falling behind the rest of the world.''

What did they identify as the root of America's competitiveness problem? Respondents--remember, these are 10,000 Harvard Business School graduates working all around the world and in the United States--pointed to America's Tax Code as the root of the problem. Specifically, they pointed to the complexity of the code as one of the greatest current or emerging weaknesses in the U.S. business environment.

The Harvard study made clear that our Tax Code puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage on the world market. That obviously concerns us.

Where do we go from here? I believe we have to reform our Tax Code. We have to adapt. We have to help make America more competitive. It is very clear. It is very simple. We have to give companies such as Applied Materials a reason to keep their headquarters in the United States.

We have been through a difficult and counterproductive period on Capitol Hill. The recent shutdown and the threat of default undermined confidence in the U.S. and did $24 billion in unnecessary damage to our economy.

According to a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the shutdown cost 120,000 jobs in October alone.

I spent last week home in my State, as others were in their States. I was meeting with my bosses, the folks and citizens of Montana. They are not too happy with the antics going on in Washington, DC--and rightly so.

Fortunately, that battle is behind us and the government is back to work. It is time for us to come together to tackle the challenges facing our country.

Right now there are more than 11 million unemployed Americans looking for work. Our economy is expected to continue growing at a sluggish rate for the next year, less than 3 percent.

We have to ask: How do we create jobs? How can we spark faster growth in our economy? How can we boost our competitiveness and keep American companies at home in America?

Tax reform must be part of the solution. It is not the whole solution, but it is part of the solution.

That was the clear message I heard traveling around the country this summer with my friend Dave Camp. Dave is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Dave and I met with families and businesses, large and small, to hear about their experiences in dealing with the Tax Code.

We visited a family-owned bakery in Minneapolis, a small appliance store in New Jersey, a tech start-up in Silicon Valley, and a farm in Tennessee. We visited some large companies as well, companies such as 3M, Intel, FedEx, who employ thousands of people in the United States and around the world.

At every stop Dave and I heard the same message. U.S. companies and workers, companies large and small, workers employed at large and small companies, want a more simple, more fair Tax Code that closes loopholes and helps them compete and strengthens our economy.

This issue is not going away. It is too important. With so many people out of work, with economic growth still too slow, with a competitiveness gap costing us jobs and revenue, it is time for us to act. It is time for us to reform our Tax Code.

The chairman of the House and Senate Budget Committees brought their conferees together for the first time today. They have come together to try to find common ground on a budget and a plan to rebuild confidence in our economy. Patty Murray and Paul Ryan are incredibly smart and hard-working people. They care. And I am confident they can craft a compromise to help get America back on track.

I look forward to working with Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan in the tax entitlement components of their discussions, but at the same time I will continue to work on a parallel track with the Finance Committee advancing tax reform.

We are working hard--in Bernard Shaw's words--to adapt to the world and build a tax code that works. And Dave Camp is doing the same thing in the House. We are going down separate paths but coming together with a common goal--reducing the deficit, creating jobs, and promoting economic growth. We are coming together to put America back on track.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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 ask unanimous consent that all time on both sides be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.