Floor Statements

Yesterday we had a vote on a labor issue. This was a vote as to whether men and women in the workplace working the same jobs get the same pay. Most people would say: Well, isn't that the law already? Yes.

Unfortunately, the law as written in 1963 with the Equal Pay Act isn't working very well. In a lot of workplaces women are paid less. In the State of Illinois, it is about 75 cents for every dollar paid to a man for most women unless you happen to be an African man and then it is 65 cents, or Hispanic, it is 65 cents. The actual working relationships in many businesses discriminate against women.

We offered a bill yesterday to the Equal Pay Act brought to the floor by Senator Mikulski of Maryland and Senator Boxer of California. We asked if we could now revisit the Equal Pay Act to make sure it is enforceable and that it works so that literally if my son or my daughter ended up with the same job and the same workplace and the same work record, they would get the same pay. Not a radical idea by any measure. That was what we brought up for a vote yesterday.

I took a look at the Congressional Record to refresh my memory and talked with the staff. Not one Republican Senator would vote for that bill--not one. There were 52 votes in favor of moving forward on this bill. All of them were from the Democratic side.

So when I listen to these calls for reform when it comes to labor laws and bipartisanship when it comes to labor laws, my obvious question to my friends on the other side of the aisle is: Where were you yesterday? We had a chance here on the floor of the Senate to do something on a bipartisan basis for pay equity, equal pay for men and women in the workplace.

This is not the first time we faced this issue. Lilly Ledbetter became somewhat legendary in America. This lady, whom I had the privilege to meet a few times, had a tough job. She worked at a tire manufacturing facility in Alabama. She worked hard for a long time. As she was nearing retirement, someone went up to her and said: Lilly, you have been a manager around here a lot of years, but they are paying you a heck of a lot less than the men who have the same job in this plant. She didn't quit.

They don't publish the wages of all coworkers so that you would know this. She was upset about it. She spent all those years working there and she was being discriminated against because she was a woman. She filed a lawsuit, as she was entitled to under the law, saying that this was discriminatory and she was entitled to back pay for this discrimination.

The Supreme Court, right across the street, threw out the lawsuit and said she didn't report this discrimination in a timely fashion. She didn't report that she was being paid less within a certain number of months, and her response was: How would I even know that? I don't know what that man who was the manager next to me is being paid any more than he knows what I am being paid.

That is what the Supreme Court decided.

The first bill that was signed into law by President Obama, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, said that Lilly Ledbetter and people like her at a future time would be allowed to sue for back wages if they were discriminated against.

Very few, if any, Republicans supported this. When I hear speeches on the floor about reforming labor laws and the workplace laws in America, let's do it in a bipartisan fashion. When it got down to the real basics, S. 2199 yesterday, not a single Republican would join us, not one. I would think they would feel as we do. It is only fair. It is only fair that if you are in the workplace doing the same job, you get the same pay. Unfortunately, not one of them would. So when they call for reforming the National Labor Relations Board and they call for bipartisanship, I think it should start right here when it comes to legislation that comes before the Senate.

I also listened to the Republican Senate leader come to the floor today and talk about the state of our economy. I wonder sometimes if Members of the Senate, who are entitled to their own opinions, should also be entitled to their own facts because what the Senator from Kentucky failed to note was

the economy which President Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009. It was in sad shape.

What a contrast from 8 years before when President Bill Clinton left office in January of 2001, 14 years ago. We had gone through a period of 4 straight years of Federal budget surplus. A Democratic President, 4 straight years of Federal budget surplus, and President Clinton left to the new President, George W. Bush, a surplus in the next year's budget of $120 billion, if my memory serves me.

The last time that happened, 4 straight years of surplus, had been 40 years before. So here is Democratic President Clinton leaving office to President George W. Bush with a string of surpluses in the budget that we hadn't seen for four decades.

In addition, President Clinton was taking the surplus and investing it in Social Security so that it was stronger than it had been in years because of the surpluses.

During the period of the Clinton Presidency, 23 million new jobs were created in this country. Eight years, 23 million jobs, and government spending was still growing each year. Yet there were surpluses, job creation, and economic growth in the 8-year period of time.

When President Clinton left office, the national debt that had been accumulated over the entire history of the United States totaled $5 trillion. That was January of 2001. He handed that economy and that budget to President George W. Bush.

Now fast forward 8 years. What did President George W. Bush hand to new President Barack Obama? One of the weakest economies America had seen since the Great Depression. The month President Obama took the oath of office in January of 2009, when he put his hand on the same Bible Abraham Lincoln used when he was sworn in as President, that month we lost nearly 800,000 jobs in America. That previous year, private employers had shed more than 4 million jobs. We know what happened to savings and retirement accounts. They were devastated by that recession. The economy was shrinking.

In just 8 years, President George W. Bush took one of the strongest, fastest growing economies in American history and, sadly, turned it into an economic recession. How did he do it? Tax breaks for wealthy people and wars that were not paid for. Those were the two things that drove us from a $5 trillion debt when President Clinton left office-- cumulative debt in the history of America.

When President George W. Bush left office, handing it over to President Obama, the national debt had broken $5 trillion to $12 trillion. It more than doubled in the 8-year period of time. So President Obama had a challenge. Get the economy back on its feet.

Right now, Public Television has a series on the Roosevelts. I have enjoyed it because Ken Burns is one of the best. He is telling the story of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt.

We remember what happened when Franklin Roosevelt came to office at the end of 1932 and the beginning of 1933, facing the Great Depression in America. He said: We have to get America back to work. That is what President Obama says. The stimulus package. Let's get back to work here. Let's put people earning paychecks into a position where they can save their homes and keep their families together and rebuild the economy. He got almost no help from the other side of the aisle.

Remember the automobile industry. Remember what was happening in the automobile industry when President Obama took over office from President Bush. It was flat on its back. Two major companies, Chrysler and General Motors, were facing bankruptcy and even the prospect of going out of business.

President Obama said: We cannot let this happen. There are too many good-paying jobs across America. He stepped in and helped by loaning money to these automobile companies to get back on their feet.

Just last week I had some auto dealers from the Chicagoland area come to see me in my office. One said, Do you know what happened? We were selling about 9 million cars when the recession hit. Now we are back on our feet. We are up to 16 million a year. The automobile industry is coming back strong.

I look at Illinois and I can see it in Belvidere where the Fiat Chrysler plant is working three shifts. I see it at the Ford plant on the South Side of Chicago. They are working three shifts as well.

President Obama said: Let's get back to work. Let's save the auto industry. He did. Now they come to the floor and say: You know, it just hasn't been fast enough.

When it came to the stimulus package, we had little or no support from the other side of the aisle. When it came to rebuilding my State of Illinois and across the country, it was resistance.

Then comes the issue of health insurance. I want to say a word about that. I have voted for the Affordable Care Act. It may be one of the most important votes ever cast.

I did it for personal reasons because I personally experienced with my family a moment when we had no health insurance.

My wife and I got married very young. I was still in law school. God sent us a baby. She had some medical issues. We had no health insurance. I was going to school here at Georgetown Law School. I would leave class, pick up my wife and baby and go to the charity ward at Children's Hospital in Washington, DC.

We were sitting in there with a number in my hand waiting to see who would walk through that door to be the doctor to save my baby's life. I had no health insurance. I have never felt more helpless as a husband and father than at that moment.

I believe today, as I did then, that should never happen to any family. I believe this great Nation should provide basic health care for everyone living in this great Nation. That is why I voted for the Affordable Care Act.

What has happened since? Eight million Americans are now insured under the Affordable Care Act. We have seen an 8-percent decline in uninsured people in my home State and many States.

One of the most successful States when it comes to the Affordable Care Act happens to be the Commonwealth of Kentucky which the Republican Senate leader represents.

They have signed up in substantial numbers. Hundreds of thousands of people in his State now have health insurance because the Affordable Care Act, which some characterize in a friendly or derogatory way as ObamaCare, has worked.

What has it meant in Illinois? Some 640,000 people in Illinois now have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. In a State of about 13 million people, that is a substantial number, and 400,000 of them were low-wage workers who had no benefits in their job and now qualify for Medicaid. They have health insurance.

I met one of them, Rich Romanowski. What a perfect Chicago name, right? Rich, a big barrel-chested Polish guy, is a musician. He has done part-time work all his life and he never had health insurance. Now he is in his sixties. Rich came to one of our press conferences, smacked his wallet, and said: I have a card in my wallet that says I have health insurance for the first time in my life.

He is not the only one. He is one of 400,000 in my State, which means when they get sick and go to the hospital, their bills are not passed on to the rest of us, to all the people with insurance, to those who use Medicare. They have their own insurance now, and it means they are going to be healthier.

I think of Judy. Judy works in Southern Illinois. She works in one of the motels that I stay in there, and she is a hospitality lady. When people go for breakfast, she is the one greeting us and showing us where to sit down. Judy is about 62 years old, a hard-working Southern Illinois lady and one of the sweetest people we would ever want to meet. Judy got health insurance for the first time because of the Affordable Care Act, and it is a good thing she did because she has just been diagnosed with diabetes. She needs good care because diabetes, if not treated right, can lead to serious complications: blindness, amputations. Judy has that health insurance.

Remember when the government shut down last year, Senator Cruz of Texas came and read Dr. Seuss books to us. I came to the floor and said to him: You tell us you are shutting down

the government to protest the Affordable Care Act. Well, what do you say about Judy? Judy, who has worked in Southern Illinois all her life, has no health insurance, needs it, and is now going to get it under Medicaid. Are you going to tell me we are going to do away with this law now and take away her health insurance? What would you say to her?

Senator Cruz said on the record on the Senate floor: Judy needs to get a better job.

I think many times folks in the Senate need to get the heck out of the Capitol, get out, meet the rest of America, and come to understand they are working hard every day, they are not getting paid a whole lot of money, and basic health insurance is beyond their reach, beyond their grasp. Well, the Affordable Care Act changed that, and we are not going back.

The House has voted over 50 times to repeal that law, and I say that as long as Barack Obama is President, that is not going to work. He is not going to let them do it. I am going to stand with him because I happen to be one of those persons who had a member of my family with a preexisting condition--the situation with my daughter.

I know the kind of discrimination that people with preexisting conditions used to face before the Affordable Care Act. We are not going back to those days. This Senator and this President for sure, we are going to fight all the way to make sure that health insurance is there for those who are struggling in their work and there for families that would otherwise not have a chance.

Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act

Student Loan Debt

I spent much of my time over the August recess visiting college campuses and talking to current students and graduates about their student debt.

I visited Northern Illinois University in De Kalb, Judson University in Elgin, and Lincoln Land Community College in Springfield, and University of Illinois at Chicago.

With an estimated 1.7 million Illinoisans holding a combined $47 billion in student loan debt, it is no wonder that it was on the minds of nearly everyone I spoke with. On average, Illinois graduates of the Class of 2012 left with $28,028 in debt--but individual debt is often much higher. I have had students contact me who have upwards of $100,000 in debt and no chance to ever pay it off.

For too many young Illinoisans, and students across the country, the opportunity for a fair shot at an affordable college education has become a long shot. They do the right thing--they go to school to get ahead but end up with so much debt that it becomes impossible for them to ever pay it back let alone get ahead.

I recently met Jessica Ibares at NIU.

Jessica graduated from Northern Illinois and is now working as a financial aid counselor.

How about that? She helps others figure out how to pay for their education, but struggles paying for her own.

She holds almost $40,000 in Federal student loan debt that she'll have to start repaying in November. Working at a public institution, she makes a modest salary and will only be able to pay about $50 a month on her loan--which may not even cover the interest.

How will she ever start repaying the principal? Jessica will find it difficult to get out of the debt she's in--and she went to a good, public school.

Dawn Thompson

Imagine what students who went to predatory for-profit schools face.

I recently met Dawn Thompson in Springfield. She is a 48 year old single mother of two.

Dawn thought she was doing the right thing getting a paralegal degree from Everest College online. That is right, Everest College--one of the subsidiaries of the failed Corinthian Colleges chain.

This disgraced company was caught falsifying job placement rates and collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. In the meantime, they left thousands of students in financial ruin with no real education to show for it, all the while making money hand over fist off of taxpayers.

Dawn could never find a job in her field with her degree from Everest. She was over $100,000 in student loan debt, both Federal and private loans, and working a minimum wage job as a bank teller. Dawn tried to file for bankruptcy in 2013 and, you guessed it, her student loans were not dischargeable--one of the only debts that is not.

At that point, she felt like her only option was to go back to school to hopefully improve her chances of getting a good-paying job and to defer her loans. Unfortunately, she went back to Everest--she started her Master's in business administration at Everest. Regardless of what happens with Everest as they end their reign of fraud, Dawn is likely to be stuck with her $100,000 plus student loan bill.

Perhaps the only thing more sickening than Dawn's story, is that it's not unique. While the schools I visited were different, the borrower's personal backgrounds varied, and the amount they owed unique--the refrain over and over from these Illinois students was the same: ``Senator, Washington has to help us.''

My guess is that my colleagues heard the same thing from some of the 40 million Americans in their States drowning in more than $1.2 trillion in collective student loan debt.

Well, Democrats have an answer that will help many of these students--it's called the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. It would help an estimated 25 million current borrowers who are struggling to repay their Federal or private student loans refinance into lower federal interest rates--saving the average borrower $2,000 over the life of the loan.

In Illinois, an estimated 1.1 million of the 1.7 million with student debt could lower their interest rates under our bill--nearly two-thirds of all borrowers in my home State.

Here is how it would work. Those with Federal loans could refinance into lower rates--the same rates available to students who took out loans last school year.

Those with private loans--many of which have sky-high interest rates and very few protections for borrowers--could refinance into Federal loans with lower rates and stronger consumer protections.

What's more, our bill is fully paid for.

It assesses a modest tax on millionaires to help borrowers refinance and get back on a path of financial security--this is often referred to as the Buffet Rule.

I am hopeful we will have a chance to vote again on this bill to help student borrowers.

Earlier this summer, this bill was killed by 38 Republicans who voted against even moving to debate it. These Republicans were given a choice--side with working families and students seeking the American Dream or protect millionaires from paying a single penny more in taxes; side with 25 million Americans who could be helped by the bill or 22,000 or so millionaire households who might have to pay more in taxes under the bill.

Sadly, I don't have to tell you who those 38 Republican Senators picked.

Americans across the country are talking about this issue--I have heard them. But, even so, in June, 38 Republicans said: ``The Senate can't talk about it.''

It doesn't seem right to me.

Thankfully, though, there were three Republicans--Senators Collins, Corker, Murkowski--who joined every Democrat to support moving the bill forward.

But if the 38 Republicans who voted ``no'' have another chance, I hope they remember the struggling students and families they talked to back home over the August recess.

Economic Impacts

I hope they realize that if we don't give struggling borrowers another option besides default, this student debt will haunt them for the rest of their lives and will have a drag on our economy. It already is. Experts tell us it is stagnating growth in the housing market, preventing business creation, and jeopardizing future retirement security for a generation of young Americans.

Conclusion

I hope America's youth are paying close attention to this issue: how their Senators voted on this measure offers them the bare truth. I hope more of my Republican colleagues will join us to move forward this important piece of legislation if we get a chance to vote on it again.

But for now, it shows the stark difference between those Senators who believe hard-working students deserve a fair shot at the American Dream and those who will stand by and do nothing as America's next generation is sentenced to debt.

This afternoon my colleague Senator Warren is coming to the floor. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is a new Senator--and what a terrific addition to the Senate. She is the best. I have known her for years, and I encouraged her to run because I knew she would bring something special to the Senate.

She has done it. She came up with a way for college students and their families to renegotiate student loans. People can renegotiate their auto loans; they can renegotiate the mortgages on their homes. Why shouldn't students, those who have graduated, and their families who face student loan debt be able to renegotiate to a lower interest rate? That is the Warren bill.

She is right. It is a big difference. It would bring down the interest rate on undergraduate loans, I think, to 3.8 percent. I run into students who are trying to pay off loans at 9 percent. Ask anybody who owns a home the difference between a 9-percent mortgage and a 3.8- percent mortgage. They will tell you it is big. When someone makes a payment under a 3.8-percent interest rate, a lot more goes to reduce principal and you finally put that loan to rest after so many years. So Senator Warren is going to try again. We tried it once before but couldn't get the Republican support. I think we had three--maybe three--who voted with us on the Republican side. Under Senate rules we need 60.

In my State of about 13 million, there are about 1.7 million people carrying student loan debt. They aren't all young people. They include parents who signed up for PLUS loans and even grandparents who wanted to help a grandson or a granddaughter get into college and go forward. They are carrying this debt. If Elizabeth Warren's bill passes to renegotiate college loans, it is going to save them--on average--$2,000 apiece and give them a chance to reduce and retire that loan at an earlier stage.

There is an interesting phenomena going on in Chicago now. I talked to some younger friends of mine and they said: If you have an apartment for rent in Chicago, and it is a good one, get there fast and sign up quickly.

There is a land rush on to rent apartments. Why? Because younger people cannot even consider buying a condo or a little house. Why? Too much student debt. Student debt in America, cumulatively, is greater than credit card debt in America, cumulatively.

More of these students graduating with the debt, paying it off, are making life decisions because of the debt. I have run into it: They studied to be a teacher but ended up with so much debt that they couldn't even consider it and had to take a better-paying job. We lost a good teacher because of student debt.

Students are putting off getting married, putting off going out on their own, buying a car, and, if married, starting a family. I have heard it all. That is what this student debt is all about.

When my colleagues come to the floor and say why don't we do something on a bipartisan basis, I say: This student debt isn't just a debt for Democratic students; it is a debt for all students.

So let's come together when Elizabeth Warren makes her unanimous consent request this afternoon and finally do something for a change, for middle income and working families who want their kids to go to school but don't want them so deep in debt that their lives are changed or ruined. That is only reasonable.

If we want to make sure that America continues to be a leader in the world, we need to graduate the very best with the education and training they need to lead our Nation. Some of them are holding back, holding back because of a fear of college debt.

One other thing I will mention, college loans are different than other loans. I studied many years ago back in law school bankruptcy law, and we learn in bankruptcy law that most of the loans you take out in life are dischargeable in bankruptcy, which means if everything fails--you lose your job, you are in a situation where there is a serious pile of medical bills and you can't get back to work--in most cases you can go to bankruptcy court and through a long process those debts will be wiped out and give you a second chance in life. It is not an easy process. It is not something people rush to, but many people have no choice.

If you did that with a college loan, it wouldn't help you a bit. College loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. They are with you for a lifetime. That is a sad reality. This is all the more reason to make sure those loans are affordable, all the more reason to support Elizabeth Warren when she talks about reducing these interest rates.

First Amendment

The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, today talked about the vote we had on a constitutional amendment. It was an amendment which didn't get the necessary votes; it needed 67. It didn't get the necessary votes on the Senate floor.

Its sole purpose, offered by Senator Udall from New Mexico, was to reverse the Citizens United decision. That decision by the Supreme Court basically took off the caps and limits when it came to individuals and corporations putting as much money as they wanted to into the political process. One of my colleagues, Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, by her latest estimate has had more than $20 million of negative ads run against her in her home State--not by her opponent, not even by the North Carolina Republican Party but by these outside interests such as the Koch brothers.

The Koch brothers in the last election cycle spent over $250 million of their own money. They are a bigger deal than most political parties now--these two brothers who are billionaires--and they are putting more money into this system. Sadly, many of the beneficiaries of the Koch brothers are walking behind them on a leash. They are being led around by them because you don't want to cross the Koch brothers.

The amendment of Senator Udall of New Mexico would have finally given the States the authority to regulate the amount of money that could be spent on campaigns.

It comes to this: If we want mere mortals to run for public office-- as opposed to multimillionaires--we have to get this playing field back under the control of the normal people. Maybe we won't have as many television ads to see--and I know how much people enjoy those--but at the end of the day we could still get our message across.

I supported and actually introduced public financing laws. I still stand by them. We would be a better country if we had public financing, took the special interests out of the campaigns, shortened the campaigns, and had actual debates. Those sorts of things would get us back to what the country is all about and maybe start to restore some confidence in Congress, in our political system, and in both political parties--and we are all pretty low at this moment.

So public financing is a right step but not likely to happen soon. Of this approach by Senator Udall to basically reverse the Citizens United decision, the other side argues it inhibits freedom of speech. Well, there is only so much speech that individuals can claim. The Koch brothers, because of their multimillions--and there are folks on the left, incidentally, spending a lot of money too--left and right--don't deserve to pick up a microphone or have a bigger voice in our political process.

We have a lot of work to do. This week we are going to get down to business on a few things that are essential. I am sorry that yesterday the Republicans wouldn't help us when we wanted to pass pay equity and make sure that women were treated fairly in the workplace. We needed them, and they weren't there.

That is disappointing, but it is an indication of where the two parties are today on that issue. They didn't support our efforts to increase the minimum wage. I support increasing the minimum wage.

They haven't been able to help us when we come up with legislation to deal with college loans, but this afternoon they will have a second chance. I hope Elizabeth Warren's bill moves forward and that we end this week on a

positive note for working families and their kids who want to go to school but don't want to be burdened with the debt that is going to change their lives.

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

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly), and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today we remember 9/11. The President, First Lady and Vice President led a moment of silence at the White House this morning. The anniversary was observed at the Pentagon, at Ground Zero in New York, and in a field in Shanksville, PA. Across the country, we are connected by the sadness we all feel as we reflect on the lives lost, some 3,000 Americans, to this blatant act of terrorism.

We can all recall that moment. I recall looking down the Mall toward the Washington Monument and watching the black smoke billowing across the Mall from the Pentagon, where that deadly crash took the lives of passengers on that plane and innocent people working in defense of America. That was a moment that will never be forgotten.

There's a Hebrew word used in the Old Testament known as ``selah.'' It doesn't have an easy translation but it is meant to serve as a pause-and-consider moment between passages. At 8:46 a.m. this morning, we observed a moment of silence to remember those souls lost on that day. We should all experience a ``selah'' moment today because we will never forget 9/11. Pause and consider, pause and remember.

Thirteen years later, we still live in the shadow of the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon. Al Qaeda brought its darkness to our shores and took the lives of innocent people. President John F. Kennedy said, ``We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future.''

It was in our bleakest moments in those tragic days that we found the light. Remember the outpouring of compassion and common purpose that united us on 9/11 and for weeks after. The attacks were the worst humanity could provide. Our response as a people was the best. The American people are always the candle that guides us.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, most Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the American people are awaiting the President's speech this evening. It is a critically important speech about America's national security from our Commander in Chief. It is going to address the horror of terrorism in the Middle East and particularly the Islamic state, a terrorist group like few others--maybe like none we have ever seen.

This Islamic state, known as ISIS or ISIL, has been moving in full force in Syria and in Iraq. They are different than other extremist terrorist groups because they take and hold territory. That has not been seen in the past. They are also hell-bent on establishing resources and ongoing visible treasury. Some say they generate $1 million a day in revenues from the oil production they are in charge of. They swoop into a city and take over the banks, raiding them of all the money they can get their hands on.

In addition, they are engaged in some of the most barbaric and depraved tactics we have seen. The beheading of two Americans comes to mind instantly. It is a heartbreaking situation for their families and friends but an enraging situation for all of America, to think that innocent journalists would be subjected to such horrific treatment. And they threaten to do more. It isn't just Americans who are in their sights. They have targeted minorities. They have targeted those who are struggling in Iraq to survive, and they are prepared to literally force them into starvation or death. It is a harrowing situation. To think that some 11,000 or 12,000 of these ISIS terrorists have wreaked such havoc on the country of Iraq and the neighboring country of Syria really is a wakeup call for America.

The President is going to speak to the situation this evening. We, of course, want him to lay out the threat, and he will. We want him to spell out why this threat is important to the security and the future of the United States. I am certain he will. I want him to speak as well to our approach and how we are going to deal with this threat, and I believe he will, in some detail. I want to know who else is on our side in this effort as we move forward, what the scope of our activities will be, and the limitations of that scope of activities. The duration and the justification, the constitutionality and the legality are all critical issues, and we await the words of the President of the United States.

Most of us have held back at this point, waiting for the President's statement, but some have not. Some have already come to the floor of the Senate this morning to criticize the President when it comes to this issue of foreign policy. That is unfortunate. I think the President is entitled to at least present his case this evening before people come to the floor and condemn the President's foreign policy. We need to hear from the President what his plan is. And my hope is--and it would be nothing short of a political miracle in Washington, DC-- that there would actually be bipartisan support for a plan emerging from the President's statement tonight.

Some of us may have our differences with some part of it. That is natural. That is our responsibility in the legislative branch of our government. But we should try to find common ground where we can. When America speaks in unity, with one voice, with one determined effort, that is when we are strongest.

There was a time in the history of this country--and I have lived through part of it--when there would be vigorous debates on foreign policy on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate, leading up to a vote on a critical question such as the invasion of a country or a war. Even after a contentious and sometimes partisan debate, without fail--without fail--there would be bipartisan support for the emerging policy.

People remember the war in Kuwait. I was one who voted against it. Do my colleagues know there was offered on the floor of the House immediately after the vote in favor of the President's policy a bipartisan resolution supporting the President's policy? That was considered the natural, reasonable thing to do.

We can look back to the war in Iraq. Go back to October 11, 2002. On the floor of the Senate we had a debate that ended in a vote on the invasion of Iraq. It is one of those moments in my career I will never forget because 23 of us voted no, including 1 Republican, Lincoln Chafee, and 23 Democrats. We voted no on the invasion of Iraq.

It wasn't long thereafter, though, that we were presented with appropriations bills to fund the military effort in Iraq. I voted for them. The reason I voted for those appropriations is pretty obvious. If it were my son, my daughter, my spouse fighting in Iraq, I would want them to have every resource necessary to accomplish their mission and come home safely.

So there was a bipartisan consensus, even though there was a difference in the formulation of foreign policy. I

hope that is what emerges tonight. I hope once the President has stepped forward and said that this is a plan, let us work together toward that plan, that we will see some bipartisanship emerging in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

We can have our differences and questions, but at the end of the day we need to come together as a nation. This horrible terrorist group, which has beheaded two innocent Americans and is absolutely depraved in its conduct, is going to continue. It is going to create chaos in Iraq. It is going to destabilize that country, and it is going to endanger not only innocent people but it is going to endanger innocent Americans. Let's listen carefully to what the President has to say.

This morning the majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada came to the floor and talked about a chance occurrence yesterday. Who should return to the Halls of the Capitol yesterday? Former Vice President Richard Cheney. What a moment for him to return to Washington as we debate foreign policy. We remember the foreign policy of Vice President Cheney and others. We know the price we paid for what turned out to be some very questionable, if not wrong, decisions.

At the end of the day in Iraq, 4,476 Americans lost their lives; 30,000 came home with serious injuries. We added $1 trillion to our national debt to pay for it.

It was Vice President Cheney's idea that the United States would be strong and muscular after the 9/11 attack, and he picked Iraq as a target. We would take out Saddam Hussein. The purported weapons of mass destruction never existed, never were found, but we invaded nevertheless. Now comes former Vice President Cheney again to inspire his troops in terms of this conflict.

I hope not only Democrats but Republicans as well will think twice about that advice. We have listened to this man's counsel before, and the world did not turn out to be the place he promised it would be.

Let us listen carefully, objectively, and honestly to the President tonight. Let us try to find some common ground as Americans where we can stand together against this terrorist threat.

The President has made it clear to all of us he is not going to be sending ground troops into this Iraq situation. We want to be careful that we don't engage ourselves in a long-term war involving the vulnerability of our troops for a long period of time, so I was disappointed with some of the statements made on the floor this morning on the other side.

I hope Americans will listen carefully, as I will tonight, to the President.

Veterans Small Business Enhancement Act

Tomorrow marks the 13th anniversary of 9/11. Our thoughts turn to the Americans we lost that day and to the men and women who showed such heroism above and beyond the call of duty. Firefighters, police, first responders, and Americans from all walks of life showed on that day that although terrorists might try to destroy our way of life, they cannot keep us down. Americans do stand together when we are threatened.

Since that day, to support the global war on terror, the Defense Department says about 2.5 million Americans--members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and related National Guard units--have been deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Of those, more than one- third were deployed at least one time. More than 11,000 lost their lives in those two wars.

There are ways we can show our gratitude and help our veterans, including service veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, now that they are home.

Tomorrow I am introducing, along with Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, the Veterans Small Business Enhancement Act. It will allow veterans who own small businesses to participate in GSA's excess Federal property program. This program makes items that the Federal agencies no longer need available to nonprofits and other groups that have a justifiable need for the property. We are talking about everything from vehicles to computers, office furniture, tools, and even heavy construction equipment. Participants in the program can claim the items for their businesses if they demonstrate a justifiable need for the property and they agree to pay for shipping and handling so there is no expense to the Federal Government.

By keeping their equipment overhead low, in this way the small businesses can grow their businesses. If unclaimed, the Federal property has to be disposed of by our government as excess property-- and that costs money. The items have to be organized into one physical location, then photographed, catalogued, and ultimately auctioned off to scrap dealers who pay pennies on the dollar.

The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, which helps facilitate the GSA's excess Federal property program, estimates that taking surplus property off the Federal Government's hands, pairing it with those who could use it, saved the United States $200 million last year alone.

Minority-owned small businesses participate in this program now and have since 1999. My bill would extend that opportunity to veteran-owned small businesses as well.

Veterans throughout Illinois have contacted me to let me know how the surplus property program might help their small businesses.

Jim Ward, for example, a retired Army veteran, owns a popular tile business in Mount Sterling, in west central Illinois. His small business could benefit from maintenance equipment typically found in the Federal surplus program. Tile saws and cutters, kneepads, mixers, scrapers, trowels, and other hand tools are all items that appear from time to time in the program. He says he doesn't need state-of-the-art equipment. Getting his hands on something that works would be a big help to his veteran-owned business.

Then there is veteran Jim Sodaro. He owns a bar and a snow removal business in Springfield, IL. There are quite a few surplus items that could help him operate his business and free up resources for employees and overhead. Jim says he needs things such as tables, brooms, paint, and hand tools to run his bar. His snow removal business needs a pickup truck and other vehicles.

We heard from Jason Harris, a Marine Corps veteran who runs a popular landscaping business in Carbondale, IL. Shawnee Landscaping designs and installs patios, fencing, and retaining walls for gardens and porches. Mr. Harris would benefit from Federal surplus equipment too: Bobcats, tractors and loaders, hand tools and office supplies.

Tom Lomelino is a retired Army veteran and owner of the Lomelino Sign Company in Jacksonville, IL. Mr. Lomelino makes and installs advertising signs. He can use a bucket truck, a backhoe, or other equipment needed for installation and maintenance.

All of these Illinois veterans have a legitimate need for items that otherwise would go to waste and we would pay to destroy. Wouldn't it be better to put these items in the hands of veterans so their businesses can succeed and they can hire people in their local communities? I think so. Small business is the engine of the American economy. Our veterans have served our country well. Let us serve their next phase in life and make sure their businesses are successful.

I encourage my colleagues who want to support the veterans and dispose of surplus property in a productive way--not an expensive way-- so that it continues to make money for the United States to join me in support of this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is necessarily absent.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Can the Senator tell me what the cutoff date is for eligibility for DACA?

No. I would say, if I might, through the Chair, it is not the argument that anyone is making that these children should receive amnesty. What we are saying is they should be treated humanely----

And go through an orderly process returning to their countries. But what the Senator from Texas is asking us to do is to disqualify up to 2 million young people who are here in the United States and can qualify for DACA as DREAMers--people who were here long before these unaccompanied children showed up at the border. That was the proposal that came from the House which the Senator inspired them to vote for. They stood for a standing ovation because they denied an opportunity to 2 million young people in this country to be able to stay here without fear of deportation. That is what the Senator is asking for today.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I wish to ask the Senator this question: If amnesty means the person has a right to citizenship or legal status on a permanent basis, is the Senator from Texas suggesting the deferral of deportation under DACA--is that a kind of amnesty?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Most people believe amnesty means a free pass. Whatever you have done, you stay in the United States and you stay in the United States and you become a citizen.

Let me say to the Senator from Texas that DACA is a temporary suspension of deportation. It is temporary. It has to be renewed. And in order to qualify for it, you must have been in the United States as of June 15, 2007.

What we have now are 600,000--my number is 600, you say 800--600,000 who have come forward. They have paid the fee--a substantial fee--and they are allowed to stay here, without being subjected to deportation, on a temporary basis that needs to be renewed. There are another 2 million who may be eligible.

What the Senator is doing is not addressing the unaccompanied children at the border. The Senator is saying to the remaining 2 million: You don't have a chance. You have got to leave. You are illegal. You are going to be deported.

This isn't about amnesty. It is about whether those who are qualified under the DREAM Act, which incidentally was endorsed by the House Republican Caucus when they put out their statement of principles-- whether those under the DREAM Act are going to have a chance to stay.

And to think that the Senator's colleagues in the House stood and applauded themselves for denying 2 million young people a chance to stay in the only country they have ever called home to me doesn't speak well of that caucus or their sensitivity to the reality of their lives.

These children who are brought here by their parents--some as infants--didn't vote on it. They were brought here. They have been raised in our schools. They have been taken care of in our hospitals. They pledge allegiance to the flag, as Senator Menendez says, every day. They pledge allegiance in the classroom to the only country they have ever known. And you are glorying in the possibility that you can deport these children.

Is that what you consider to be--and in your own background--I am a first-generation American. I believe you have similar claims to make. Do you believe this is what this country is all about?

I am going to give a brief statement about corporate inversion, but before I do I wish to respond to the Senator from Texas, who is my friend, and we have served together for many years. He has taken the floor for a period of time and spoken about some of the problems facing this Nation at home and abroad and has been largely been critical of the President in both categories. I didn't arrive early enough to hear his parade of horribles when it came to domestic policy; I just caught the end of it when he suggested there was something wrong with this President because America's labor force, its workforce, is shrinking. People are giving up looking for work. Well, that is a serious concern, and we ought to ask a question: Why are they giving up looking for work? It turns out it has, perhaps, something to do with the policy of our government, but it also has something to do with the life expectancy of Americans.

I am a little older than the Presiding Officer, and I just barely missed what we call baby boomers. Baby boomers are those born after World War II when the returning soldiers and their wives and spouses sat down and said: We are going to build a family. And they did. A lot of kids were born in America. It was called a baby boom.

Guess what. Baby boomers are facing retirement age. The workforce is shrinking because they are retiring. I would like to blame Barack Obama for that, but I think maybe that is a stretch. I don't think you can blame him for the baby boom. He wasn't even around after World War II, and he certainly can't be blamed because people decide to retire. Longevity kind of suggests when that might happen.

But still in all, it is another one of the things that is ticked off: The shrinking labor pool is an indication of the failure of the Obama labor policy. No. It is an indication of the shrinking baby boomers, who are aging out and retiring--and God bless them; they are entitled to it. Folks ought to think twice about that particular criticism.

I would like to address the foreign policy side, and I do wish to put in perspective what the Senator from Texas had to say, which was a long list--going all across the world--of problems this President has either failed to fix or has created.

I listened carefully, and I always do, because critics of the President have every right to do that. That is part of democracy. But they also bear some responsibility to suggest what we should do as an alternative. Many of them said we have to be more manly, we have to stand up, and we have to show the world we are assertive. What does that mean? What are they saying?

What the President is saying is that we have to be careful that we invest American lives, American treasure, and the American military in this world in places where we can make a difference and take care not to do, as they said inartfully, stupid stuff by sending our military into places where they cannot achieve their goal and reasonably come home in a short period of time. That is the President's position.

I have not heard those on the other side be more specific when they say we have to be more assertive in America.

The date was October 11, 2002, on the floor of the Senate--and I was here. It was 12 years ago, and it was the night we voted on giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The rollcall took place late at night, and I stuck around afterward. There were about three or four of us left on the floor. In the final rollcall there were 23 Senators who voted no on the invasion of Iraq. I was one of them. There was 1 Republican, and the rest were Democrats--1 Independent and 21 Democrats, I should say. Twenty-three of us voted no on invading Iraq. Twenty-three of us questioned whether being assertive at that moment in history was the right thing to do. Remember, we were told about weapons of mass destruction and threats to the United States. Some of us were skeptical. The case had not been made. But we went forward.

I would like to make a note as well that even though there was a difference of opinion about the policy of Iraq under President George W. Bush after the decision was made to go forward, many of us who voted no joined in with those who voted yes to say: Now that we have made the decision, we stand together as a nation. We are going to provide for President George W. Bush the resources for these men and women in uniform so they can accomplish their mission and come home safely.

In other words, partisanship ended at the water's edge after we had made our decision. I still think that is the right course in foreign policy. Even though I voted against that war, I voted for the resources for the troop to execute it.

I thought: What if it were your son, Senator? What if it were someone you loved? Do you want them to have everything they need to get them home safely?

Of course.

I wish that longstanding tradition in Congress would return. Wouldn't it be healthy and inspiring if after a heated debate over a foreign policy issue we said: Now we stand together. The decision has been made. We are going to stand as a nation.

But instead what I hear from the other side when it comes to foreign policy issues: We are going to be critical

of whatever he does, whenever he does it, wherever he does it.

I don't think that is constructive. I don't think it speaks well of the United States. The debate is important. The debate is part of us, part of who we are as a democracy. But after the debate, let's get on with working together.

Do you remember that it wasn't that long ago when they discovered chemical weapons in Syria? The President said: This isn't just a threat to Syria; this is a threat to the Middle East and beyond. I am going to make a stand to dismantle those chemical weapons in Syria, and I ask Congress for the authority not to send in troops but, if necessary, a missile, a bomber, a fighter plane to support our efforts to eradicate this chemical weapons stockpile.

Do you remember what happened? I do. What happened was we had a debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a vote--a bipartisan vote--which supported the President. Then we couldn't bring it to the floor because there was not adequate support from the other side of the aisle to stand by the President when it came to dismantling chemical weapons in Syria. He went forward, working then with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and basically all of those weapons have been dismantled. When the President asked for the authority to dismantle those weapons, he couldn't get the support of the other party. That was the reality.

Now we face a new challenge, and there are those who say that if we had just been bold and assertive--and I wonder if what they are saying is if we had just shown the strength we showed with the invasion of Iraq, this might not have occurred.

Make no mistake. I am honored to chair the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It is the biggest. Our budget is just under $600 billion a year. It is almost half of domestic discretionary spending. I have come to learn that our military is really the best in the world, starting with the men and women who serve but way beyond that--our technology, our intelligence. We have the very best, but we have learned the hard way that even the best military in the world can run into obstacles they did not anticipate.

The first time I went to Walter Reed, I visited with a disabled Iraqi veteran. He was a sergeant from Ohio who had his right leg blown off below the knee.

I said: What happened?

He said: It was an IED.

I said: What is that?

He said: Well, it is an explosive device, roadside bomb. And we were in the best military equipment in the world, and this crude roadside bomb went off and blew off my leg.

I thought to myself: I wonder, if the greatest military in the world with the greatest technology in the world can be brought to a stop by a crude roadside bomb, if we are properly evaluating war today, fighting terrorism today.

What the President is trying to do is to find effective ways to stop this onset of terrorism in the Middle East, this new round of terrorism in the Middle East, this group called Islamic State.

Why are we picking this group out of all the other terrorist groups-- and there are many of them. They are quantitatively, qualitatively different. They are the first terrorist group we know that has taken and held territory. Usually terrorist groups set off a bomb in the marketplace and they are gone. No, they take and hold territory. They capture banks--go inside and take all the resources out--so they have a treasury. Some people think they earn as much as $1 million a week off the oil wells they are controlling in Iraq. They use American equipment that has been left behind or stolen, and they engage in the worst level of savagery we have seen in modern times. The beheading of those two innocent Americans was heartbreaking--heartbreaking in one respect as I thought about their poor families and what they face, but it also enraged me to think that this group, the Islamic State, would do that to two innocent Americans, defying us and saying to us: This is just the beginning. It is a serious threat, and it is a threat to the stability in Iraq.

Here we are 12 years after we invaded Iraq, after we have lost 4,476 American lives in Iraq, after 30,000 of our troops have come home seriously injured, after we put $1 trillion more on our national debt to pay for the Iraqi struggle, and the country is virtually in chaos.

The President is saying to the American people: I want to fight terrorism, I want to do it effectively, and I want to do it smartly. I want to do it in a way where we are not sending in troops who are there for long periods of time to just be targets for terrorists. Let's use our resources and our forces in a thoughtful way.

I am awaiting a speech tomorrow night because I want to hear, as he lays this out, what he hopes to accomplish, how long we are going to be there, where we are going to be, and by what authority he is moving forward and using these military resources. Those are all legitimate questions, and it is right for the loyal opposition to raise questions about where he is going, why he is going, and what he wants to do. But for the time being, I think the American people want the President to present his case and then make their judgment as to what is fair to bring stability to this critical part of the world.

Corporate Inversion

Mr. President, when a company moves its corporate headquarters overseas, but only on paper so it can avoid paying its fair share of U.S. taxes, these companies , are called corporate inverters. But let's call them what they really are: corporate deserters.

These companies profit using roads and bridges built with American tax dollars to deliver goods to U.S. customers. They benefit from access to America's educated workforce . . . American investments in basic research . . . and American patent protections. And some have even made millions, if not billions, of dollars from taxpayer-funded government contracts and programs like Medicare.

But when it comes time to pay their fair share of U.S. taxes--the very taxes that pay America's roads and bridges . . . our colleges and universities . . . basic research . . . patent protections . . . Medicare . . . and other competitive advantages--these companies do everything they can to dodge U.S. taxes. And they have gotten very good at shirking their fair share.

Let me tell you how this corporate ``Three Card Monte'' works. First, a company in the U.S. purchases a company in Switzerland, Ireland or another country with a lower corporate tax rate. The U.S. company then files papers saying it is relocating overseas.

In many cases, almost nothing changes. The CEO and other senior executives stay in the U.S., no new headquarters are opened overseas, and up to 80 percent of the shareholders are the same, but suddenly the company gets a huge tax break.

But this is only the beginning of the story. Next, the new parent company--headquartered overseas--shifts the debts off its own books and onto the books of its U.S. subsidiary. Abracadabra: Another huge tax break, because the company can write off its debt and interests on that debt. This is called ``earnings stripping.''

Now, here is the third card in the Three Card Monte: the hopscotch loophole. U.S. corporations currently have nearly $2 trillion in foreign earnings stashed overseas. As long as they keep that money parked overseas, they can defer paying taxes on it.

But when a company ``inverts,'' the inverted company--the corporate deserter--can access the millions--sometimes billions--of dollars they I have parked overseas without paying US taxes on the money. So the ``hopscotch loophole'' gives these corporations another massive tax break. The inverted company can use the money it had parked overseas to pay back the loans it used to finance the inversion . . . or to pay dividends to U.S. investors--and pay little to no taxes.

Let me give you an example. Let's say a U.S. company wants a big tax break by inverting and purchasing an overseas company.

It doesn't have enough cash in the U.S. to buy the overseas company and it doesn't want to use the money it has stashed overseas--because once the money comes home, it is subject to U.S. taxes. So what does the corporation do?

First, it gets a short-term loan from a bank to fund the inversion. Once that transaction is complete, the company can use the money it has stashed overseas to pay off the short-term loan while dodging U.S. taxes on those overseas profits.

The result of this corporate Three Card Monte? Corporate deserters are able to avoid billions in U.S. taxes--and other folks--families and companies that are working hard to make it in America--have to pay more taxes. To add insult to injury, some of these corporate deserters have made their millions and billions off of federal contracts paid for by U.S. taxpayers--the very taxpayers who will have to pay for their tax dodging.

I'm not the only person who thinks this is wrong. Mark Cuban is a billionaire investor. Listen to this warning he tweeted to corporate deserters--quote: ``If I own stock in your company and you move offshore for tax reasons I'm selling your stock.''

Why did he say that? Because when companies move off shore to save on taxes, American workers and companies that stay in America, that believe in America, have to make up the shortfall.

That's not right, it's not fair, and we should take action to stop these corporations from dodging taxes and taking advantage of earning stripping and hopscotch loopholes.

Reducing Corporate Tax Rates Not A Solution

Many of our Republicans colleagues point to our broken tax code and say if we just reduce the corporate tax rate, it will stop companies from inverting.

They are wrong, plain and simple. Absolutely, our tax code is broken and Congress should reform it. We should close loopholes that allow some to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We should fix the tax system so it works for hard-working Americans and for companies that want to help America succeed.

But let's not try to fool people into thinking that if we just lower our corporate tax rate the deficit will disappear and all of our economic challenges will be solved. There is no realistic tax reform proposal that would reduce U.S. tax rates to compete with Ireland, which has a tax rate of 12.5 percent, or Switzerland, with its 17 percent corporate tax rate.

This is a race to the bottom the United States can't win and should not be lured into entering.

Instead, we should immediately act to stop companies from inverting and then we should get to work on reforming our tax code. Before a doctor can perform heart surgery, she or he first has to stop the bleeding and that is what we need to do.

There are at least a dozen companies that have announced they are inverting or are considering inversion. We should act now--either through Congressional or executive action--to close the tax loopholes that allow inverters--these corporate deserters--to avoid their fair share of taxes and push their tax obligations off onto the rest of us. Once we stop the bleeding, we can turn our attention to real tax reform where and a long-term, comprehensive solution.

Senator Levin's bill would stop the bleeding by placing a 2-year moratorium on many inversions. Only inversions where no more than 50 percent of the shareholders remain the same after the inversion would be allowed to go forward.

We should also limit the damage caused by inversions by limiting the practice of ``earnings stripping''--that's the tax-lawyer's trick where you load all the debt onto the U.S. subsidiary and then write off the debt and the interest payments as a tax deduction.

That is the purpose of a bill I am introducing tomorrow (Wednesday) with Senator Schumer. Our proposal would prevent certain corporations from taking excessive interest deductions and sticking U.S. taxpayers with the tab.

Our bill would reduce the cap on interest deductions from 50 percent of adjusted taxable income to 25 percent. It would eliminate the ability of a company to carry forward any excluded interest.

It would also require the IRS to pre-approve related-party transactions for up to 10 years after these companies move their headquarters overseas to ensure greater transparency.

This bill is a targeted approach to a serious problem.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

There's more we need to do. I plan to work with my colleagues to develop a more comprehensive proposal to address both earnings stripping by foreign corporations and the hopscotch rule.

Foreign corporations should not be allowed to load up the U.S. subsidiaries with debt and expect U.S. taxpayers to pay their debts. Inverted corporations should not be rewarded with additional tax breaks by dodging taxes on their profits earned overseas.

These two proposals, along with Senator Levin's Stop Corporate Inversion Act, must be part of any comprehensive tax reform proposal.

Before I close, let me mention one other issue.

Some of the very companies that move their headquarters overseas in order to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes then have the nerve to come back to the U.S. with their hand out asking to profit from U.S. government contracts.

Yes, that is right. Over the past 5 years, these corporate deserters have received $1 billion in federal contracts paid for by U.S. taxpayers, while avoiding U.S. taxes. This has to stop.

That is why I introduced a bill with Senators Levin and Jack Reed to ban federal contracts for these corporate deserters. There is a companion bill in the House that is sponsored by Representatives DeLauro, Doggett and Sander Levin.

This isn't a new idea. In 2008, Congress prohibited inverted corporations from obtaining any Federal contract under the annual appropriations bills, and for the most part this ban has worked.

But these companies found a loophole. That is why they pay their tax attorneys and advisors the big bucks--to find the little loopholes worth billions of dollars. We need to close this loophole so that corporate deserters aren't able to profit from taxpayer-funded government contracts.

About 50 companies have inverted in the last decade. Another dozen companies--including three headquartered in my State of Illinois--have announced that they are planning or considering inversion. If these companies want to renounce their corporate citizenship, that is their choice. I think It is a bad choice, but it is their choice.

But they should not expect American workers and other American companies to pick up the tab for them while they take advantage of all that America offers. That is not a free market. That is freeloading.

This isn't a partisan issue. Every inversion increases the burden on you and me to make up for the lost tax revenue.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the President to address this important issue.

It was about 2 weeks ago that I was in central Illinois and I was heading to a forum for Senate candidates. It was put on by the farmers in downstate Illinois. I have a lot of friends there. We went off to a farm, and before we arrived I had an extra 45 minutes. I hadn't had lunch. So we were driving around Bloomington-Normal, IL, in McLean County.

I said: Let's stop and get a sandwich somewhere.

My driver said: Well, there is a Burger King.

I said: No, thanks. There is a Steak 'n Shake--which happens to be a franchise we are very proud of in the Midwest and in Illinois.

I consciously decided not to stop at Burger King. Why? Because in the past several weeks Burger King has consciously decided they are leaving the United States. This iconic hamburger chain--second largest in the world--has bought a doughnut chain in Canada, and now they want to move their headquarters to Canada from Miami, FL. Why would they move their corporate headquarters out of the United States of America, where they have most of their restaurants? To cut their taxes. It is called inversion.

If you can pick up and on paper move your corporation to Switzerland, Ireland, the island of Jersey, Canada--you name it--there are ways that accountants and lawyers have figured out how to reduce your tax burden. But, of course, as companies decide to do that, they are also making conscious decisions to stop paying U.S. taxes or avoid paying U.S. taxes--at least some part of them.

We have seen a lot of companies announce this. AbbVie, which is a pharmaceutical company in the northern

suburbs of Chicago, used to be Abbott Laboratories. AbbVie has decided they want to move overseas.

I took a look at it and thought for a moment: Interesting. A pharmaceutical company wants to move overseas.

How important was the United States to the success of a pharmaceutical company such as AbbVie, to the fact they developed drugs and products that were profitable? How important was this country to that company? I would say critically important. Companies don't usually come up with all the ideas for new drugs. They rely on the National Institutes of Health, the premier biomedical research agency in the world. The annual budget is in the range of $31 billion, and they do research which they then turn over free of charge to pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs to make money. The National Institutes of Health is supported by American taxpayers.

If a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug they think has the potential to be a blockbuster and sell a lot, there is another step. They have to go to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the FDA tests it.

If at the end of testing they come up with the conclusion that it is not only safe but effective for what it is being used for, they give it a seal of approval. It is the gold standard of safety of pharmaceuticals. The Food and Drug Administration is supported by the U.S. Government and American taxpayers. Then it is not over. There is at least one last stop. You go to the patent office to make sure you protect your intellectual property, this pharmaceutical formula. The U.S. patent office is supported by the government and U.S. taxpayers.

So here is a pharmaceutical company using research, using testing, and using protections of patents from our government that says: Incidentally, we are leaving. We don't want to pay taxes to this government. We want to reduce our tax burden to this government.

There is something wrong with this picture. Mr. President, 49 or 50 corporations have done it, and more are threatening. Take Burger King. The sale of hamburgers does not involve a great deal of research, but the product that you are cooking at your store has been inspected for safety by the U.S. Federal Government. And the place where your store is located probably is on a highway or street supported by our government.

But then there is one other element. The people who work in fast food in America are not usually paid a lot of money. Their income is supplemented by government programs such as food stamps. It turns out to the tune of about $7 billion a year. That is what taxpayers in America pay to subsidize the income of workers in fast food restaurants. So here is Burger King that is using the largess, protection, rule of law in the United States to do their business, counting on our government to step in and supplement the income of the person frying the hamburgers and serving it, and saying: Incidentally, we are leaving; we don't have any obligation to this country to pay taxes; we are going to Canada--on paper.

There is something wrong with this picture. To me, if you are going to desert this country as a corporation, consumers first ought to be aware of it. That is why I drove past Burger King. I do not care to do business with a company that does not think it owes its fair share of taxes. Because if they do not pay their fair share of taxes, other good American companies will be forced to pay more and other individuals will too.

So it is right for us to speak up now about this process of inversion and bringing it to an end. It is not just a matter of escaping taxes. There are accounting techniques. There are countless techniques which these inverted corporations can use to even reduce their corporate taxation more.

Some people say the U.S. corporate income tax is too high. The nominal rate is 35 percent. The effective rate is closer to 25 percent, and the major corporations pay in the range of 10 to 15 percent. When you look at the countries they are going to--Ireland, I believe their corporate income tax rate is 12.5 percent; the Cayman Islands, zero. So we cannot play it to the lowest denominator, play to the bottom line, the bottom corporate income tax. It is a lose-lose situation.

What we have to do is to make sure that the inversion comes with a price. I am joined with Senator Schumer. We will put in a bill later this week to talk about this whole question of inversion as it relates to the Tax Code. It is a technical bill Senator Schumer has largely written as a member of the Senate Finance Committee and asked me to join him on because of my interest on the subject. It limits the practice of ``earnings stripping''--a tax lawyer's trick where you load all the debt on to the U.S. subsidiary and then write off the debt and the interest payments as a tax deduction. The bill which I will introduce with Senator Schumer is designed to prevent corporations from taking excessive interest deductions and sticking U.S. taxpayers with the tab. There are other parts of that bill.

I believe the Tax Code should be written in a positive fashion. It is not positive in our Tax Code to set the stage for corporations to move their jobs and headquarters overseas. In fact, we allow under our Tax Code for these corporations to deduct their moving expenses if they are going overseas. What are we thinking? Why would we create an incentive, a deduction, for taking jobs out of America? I think there is a better approach. When the time comes for tax reform--and I hope it is soon--I am going to propose that we have something called the patriot employer tax credit. Here is what it says. It is pretty simple. If your headquarters for your corporation are in the United States; if you have kept your jobs here in the United States; if at least 90 percent of your employees are paid at least $15 an hour; if you have good health insurance, according to the standards of the Affordable Care Act; if you will contribute at least 5 percent of your employees' earnings toward their retirement; and if you will give a veterans preference, we will give you a tax credit.

We want to reward--we should reward--and incentivize companies that build their future in America, companies that believe in America, companies that pay a decent wage in benefits to the people who work for them.

That is what should be in the Tax Code. Let's start incentivizing job building and job expansion here in the United States. Let's stop these deductions for moving jobs overseas. And let's put an end to this corporate inversion.

These folks have to realize we are not going to stand still for them gaming the Tax Code to avoid their responsibility to the country which, by and large, created the success of most of their corporations.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I chair the Senate judiciary subcommittee entitled the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. Obviously, the most serious charge of the subcommittee is to consider proposals to amend the Constitution. S.J. Res. 19, the democracy-for-all amendment, was the first amendment considered by the constitution subcommittee since 2009, when I became its chair.

The U.S. Constitution and the wisdom of its Framers has endured for generations. I have established--and so have many of my colleagues--a very high bar for suggestions to amend that Constitution. That is the way it should be. That is why Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I were committed to ensuring this proposal would be thoroughly vetted and that it move through the Senate by regular order.

It is important to recall that until the early 20th century most Americans were not allowed to vote. Even after the franchise was legally expanded, a violent racist campaign prevented many African Americans from voting.

Six constitutional amendments, landmark civil rights legislation, and

Supreme Court decisions helped make the promise of one person and one vote a reality. We must, in our time, in our generation, be constantly vigilant against threats to these victories which were won through the blood, sweat, tears, and even the lives of many Americans. That is why we are engaged in this debate today, because the right to vote is under siege. It is in peril. A well-funded, coordinated effort has made it harder for millions of Americans to vote and at the same time unleashed a tidal wave of special interest and corporate money into elections to drown out the voices of average Americans.

Opponents of our amendment say, oh, they are just trying to repeal the First Amendment. They have it backwards. Our efforts would protect and restore the First Amendment.

The amendment before the Senate would begin to undo the damage done by five activist, conservative Supreme Court Justices who have rewritten and distorted the First Amendment. With decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon, these five Justices overturned a century of legal and constitutional precedent to give a privileged clique and corporate titans the power to drown out the voices of ordinary Americans--and that is exactly what is happening.

Big-money donors--and their names are familiar to those who follow the world of politics; the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and the corporate interests they represent--certainly deserve a seat at the policymaking table. But the size of their bank accounts does not entitle them to buy every seat at the table, control the agenda, and silence their critics. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we are seeing across the Nation being played out, even as I speak, in this current election campaign. Big-money campaign donors and special interests, emboldened by the Supreme Court, have flooded our elections, unfortunately, to a great degree with secret contributions.

Listen to these statistics: Spending by outside groups has tripled since the last midterm election. They spent $27.6 million in 2010 compared to $97.7 million so far this year. In 2006, before this awful decision in Citizens United, these groups spent $3.5 million. And now the running total for this year: almost $100 million from outside special interest groups and well-heeled individuals.

In 2012, super PACs spent more than $130 million on Federal elections, and 60 percent of all super PAC contributions that year came from an elite class of 159 people. In North Carolina, that elite group had just one member, that State had just one person. Seventy-two percent of all outside spending in 2010 in North Carolina came from one man, Art Pope, a millionaire, conservative, rightwing activist.

As I stand and speak, there is a super PAC on the air attacking me in my home State. As best we can trace it, it is to one individual who so far apparently has spent $700,000 in negative ads against me on radio and television. Perhaps more will follow. That is the nature of the world we live in.

Members of Congress who run for office, for election and reelection, abide by strict rules on disclosure, money raised, how much is being spent. But when it comes to these individuals, since Citizens United, all bets are off.

Although some of the biggest and most frequent spenders are on the Republican side of the aisle, the influx of secret money from super PACs and wealthy donors is happening on the right and on the left. Many have created super PACs on the other side as a defense. Unfortunately, it is a tactic or strategy that has been dictated by the Supreme Court decisions. Sadly, all of this money fight is eroding our democracy and drowning out the voices of everyday citizens.

One year ago, in the Shelby County decision, the same five Justices gutted the Voting Rights Act, civil rights legislation that had protected the constitutional rights of average Americans for 50 years. Emboldened by the Shelby County decision, more Republican-dominated State legislatures followed suit by pursuing legislation to restrict the right to vote. It is no coincidence that these laws have a disproportionate impact on minority, young, and low-income voters.

During his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court said this of the right to vote. It was ``the right preservative of all other rights.'' And he pledged to be a neutral umpire, calling balls and strikes when it came to issues such as the right to vote. But because of the judicial activism of Chief Justice Roberts and his four conservative allies, the right to vote of average Americans is now at greater risk than any time since the Jim Crow era.

Two years ago I decided to take my subcommittee for hearings in the States of Ohio and Florida. In both of those States, the Republican- dominated legislatures, inspired by a group known as ALEC that is not a lobbying group but creates so-called model legislation, had dreamed up ways to restrict the opportunity to vote. How did they do this? Some of them called for the presentation of identification cards when you vote. Others said: We will limit the time that you can vote--no early voting. We will restrict the opportunities for people to vote.

My first table of witnesses consisted of a bipartisan gathering of election officials in both Florida and Ohio, States that had passed these restrictive voting laws. I asked the first panel, under oath, a basic question: Tell me about the incidents of voter fraud and voter abuse in your State which led to these changes in the legislature. There were none.

Tell me the number of individuals who had been prosecuted for voter fraud in Ohio and Florida that led to these changes in State legislation. There were virtually none. One said he could remember maybe one case or two in the course of years.

I think it is pretty clear. These efforts to restrict the right to vote have nothing to do with the integrity of elections. There isn't a single one of us in either political party who condones voter fraud and voter abuse, period. But to restrict the right to vote of millions of Americans in the name of stopping voter fraud that doesn't exist--well, it is time to ask the more basic question: What is the real reason? The real reason is to restrict the right to vote.

It is hard to believe that Republicans in State legislatures, and even some in this Chamber--the party of Abraham Lincoln, for goodness' sake--is party to this effort to restrict the right to vote across America. For goodness' sake, I have been involved in election campaigns which I have won and those which I have not won. I always felt, if it was a fair election, so be it; let the people speak. That is what a democracy is all about. But when you start playing with the rules, when you start saying, well, we are going to try to make it tougher for people to vote--even those who are legally entitled to vote--I frankly think we have crossed a line which we should not ever cross in this country. Fire hoses, growling dogs, and insidious poll taxes have now been replaced with a well-funded campaign denying millions their right to vote and a flood of special interest money drowning out the voices of average Americans.

Is that your vision of America? Is that your vision of this country in the future, where your opportunity to vote is now restricted more and more, even without any indication of voter fraud or voter abuse, when your opportunity to be informed about the candidates and their positions is in fact overwhelmed by those who come in--such as the Koch brothers and those on the left, too--to spend millions of dollars?

I introduced a bill a few years back for public financing and campaigns. There was one valiant Republican who stood, who agreed to cosponsor my bill, and only one: Arlen Specter, a Senator from Pennsylvania, a Republican Senator. What happened to him? I can tell you what happened. The late Arlen Specter was challenged in his Republican primary by one of those on the far right in his party. He couldn't win as he looked at the polls. He switched parties and became a Democrat. I lost my only Republican on public financing when he joined us on this side of the aisle. He lost the Democratic primary, went on and finished his term and passed away. But he was the only Republican with the courage to stand for public financing to change this mess we have.

I can tell you we are reaching a point where mere mortals-- individuals who don't happen to be multimillionaires--want nothing to do with this political business. It has become the hobby of

high rollers. The two candidates for the highest offices in my home State now are multimillionaires playing with their own money now, putting millions into their campaigns.

I am not envious of their wealth. I have said it publicly and I will say it again: I am only one Powerball ticket away from matching their wealth. So I am not jealous of them, but it says something about the political process, doesn't it, that someone could put in $10 or $12 million of their own money and the Supreme Court can say, well, they are just exercising their right to free speech. Really? I didn't see the word ``cash'' in the First Amendment. I didn't even see the word ``money'' in the First Amendment. That is what we are up against.

S.J. Res. 19, which is before us, is a constitutional amendment. It is narrowly tailored and it is a proposal to protect and restore the First Amendment. It empowers Congress and State legislatures, the elected representatives of the American people, to set reasonable, content-neutral--let me underline that--content-neutral limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals and special interest donors can give to candidates. It overturns Citizens United by authorizing Congress and State legislatures----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

I thank the Senator from Texas.

It overturns Citizens United by authorizing Congress and State legislatures to prohibit corporations and unions from spending money from their treasuries to influence elections. Our amendment will ensure that elections are contests for the best ideas, a contest where mere mortals--the group I mentioned earlier--have the same chance to succeed as multimillionaires. That is why our amendment is supported by 60 diverse advocacy organizations and the majority of the American people. Politicians may not get it, but the American people do. They could see what is happening to this bidding war we now call elections. They understand the flood of television.

We have one Senatorial candidate on our side, who she has been subjected to $15 million in independent expenditures, negative ads in her State. That has been going on for almost 1 year. She is going to weather the storm and be reelected, incidentally. But imagine that $15 million of special interest groups just showering her with hate and venom for month after weary month. Is that what our political process has come down to?

Opponents of our amendment argue that any limit whatsoever on election spending violates the First Amendment. Just as there is no constitutional right to buy an election, freedom of speech doesn't give anyone the right to violate or overwhelm the constitutional rights of others. Apparently five conservative Supreme Court Justices believe the wealthy and elite have a greater right to free speech because they have more money.

Our opponents also argue that corporations are people. Give me a break. Corporations are granted the advantages of perpetual life, property ownership, and limited liability to enhance their efficiency as an economic entity, according to Justice Rehnquist in one of his opinions, but he went on to say in the same opinion, ``Those properties so beneficial in the economic sphere pose special dangers in the political sphere.''

That was Justice Rehnquist speaking about giving powers to corporations which exceed the obvious. While some First Amendment protections have rightfully been extended beyond everyday Americans to corporations, Citizens United went way too far. Living, breathing Americans face challenges these legally created entities will never face. Corporations never get married, they don't raise kids, they don't care for sick relatives, and they cannot vote in elections or run for office. Corporations have the right to be heard, for sure, but the right to control an election with their bank account? There is something wrong with that decision.

Our amendment restores the basic longstanding principle that corporations shouldn't be able to wield their enormous economic power to sway Federal elections. Our amendment restores and protects the First Amendment for all Americans. I encourage my colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 19, and I expect a strictly partisan vote. I am sorry if that happens, but I expect it.

When we brought up the issue of disclosure, to disclose who was giving to campaigns, we couldn't get the Republicans to give us support. Just disclose who is giving the money. Nope. Keep it secret. That was their position. Now they not only want to keep it secret; they want to make sure those who are abusing the process by sending in huge sums of money on behalf of corporations and individuals are going to be protected. They may protect the special interests, but they will do it at the expense of average Americans who are losing their faith--losing their faith in this process and in the institutions it creates.

Restore that faith. Support S.J. Res. 19. Let's amend the Constitution and make Citizens United a vestige of a wrong-headed decision by the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

I again thank my colleague from Texas.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.