[inaudible conversations] >> president obama at the white house earlier today. the senate is gaveling back in for votes on several judicial nominations, district courts in california, florida and louisiana. we expect possible debate, too, on a measure to give tax breaks to employers who return jobs to the united states. now live senate coverage here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? aw[inaudible] there appears to be. mr. grassley grassley: [inaudib] the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on the birotte

nomination. mr. grassley: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to change his or her vote if not, the yeas are 100, the yeas are zero.

the nomination is confirmed. there are now two minutes equally divided prior to the rosenberg nomination. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. nelson: just to real estate mind the senate that -- just to real estate mind the senate that senator rubio and i have the nonpartisan process of the judicial nominating commission for our federal district judges, and robin rosenberg is a product of that, and so i commend to the senate this bipartisan nominee from the two of us. the presiding officer: is there further debate on the nomination? without objection, all time is yielded back.

the question is on the rosenberg nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

s. the presiding officer: does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 100, the nays are 0, and the nomination is confirmed. there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the degravelles nomination. without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on the nomination.

a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the -- first of all, are there any senators who wish to

vote or change their vote? if not on the yeas are 100, the nays are zero, the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i see several other colleagues on the floor. i'd like to speak for just up to about three minutes on behalf of the nominee that was just confirmed. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. it is truly my distinct privilege to be able to speak on behalf of john weeden degravel, an alf for alf three judge in louisiana. i'm very gratified my colleagues gave him a very strong vote of approval, a unanimous vote just few minutes ago.

president obama nominated mr. degravelles earlier this year and i'm very pleased i was joined by senator vitter from louisiana, my colleague, in recommending him for this confirmation today. he is affectionately known to his friends and family as johnny. he has the support of a wide cross section of community leaders in louisiana. and that support is based on an extraordinarily impressive scholarship at the louisiana university, both in his major of sociology and his juris doctor dr.ate from law school. he can excelled academically and has practiced law now for decades but is still fondly remembered as an extraordinary student. after graduating from l.s.u., he served as clerk at the firm

that he is now a partner, buoy and dodson in baton rouge who would -- would later become marine that firm sand now practicing under his own name, degravelles, parmentier and fruge. as a partner in this well-established firm in baton rouge, he has honed his skilled as one of the region's most capable litigators in both federal and state court. in addition to his work as a lawyer, respected by a broad cross section of leaders, he has also taught for 20 years at both tulane law school and louisiana university. very popular, i understand, as a teacher, always open to students, and one whose advice is sought on a regular basis. he is a very active member of

the variety of bar associations including american bar, federal bar, louisiana state bar. he was admitted to the practice, of course, in the district courts in western, middle and eastern district, southern district of texas, 5th, 6th court of appeals and the u.s. supreme court and he has practiced for decades in front of the federal bench. he has been recognized for outstanding leadership by the louisiana trial bar, trial lawyers association, and a counsel for better -- a council for better louisiana, two of our most distinguished organizations. he has dozens and dozens of articles have been written by him for legal publication, he is a sought-after speaker, and for seminars throughout the country. our former chief justice of the supreme court in louisiana, our first woman chief justice, kitty kimball, described johnny as an exceptional lawyer who

enjoys the respect of both bench and bar. and i think in one of the most important things about his background, mr. president, is after the devastating storms of rita and katrina in 2005, mr. degravelles was one of the real champions in helping set up the louisiana association for justice hurricane relief committee, assisting many displaced attorneys that had no place to practice, clients distributed all over the country, courthouses closed, helping the wheels of justice move forward during that very difficult time of upheaval and destruction. so i have every confidence that mr. degravelles will serve the people of the middle district as a fair, wise, and very experienced lawyer, he will serve as judge, and i'm very, very proud that this body voted so overwhelmingly in favor of his confirmation today. i know his wife jan is extremely

proud and he and jan are proud of mote children following in his footsteps, kate and neil who are both practicing attorneys in louisiana. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i rise today to speak about a piece of commonsense legislation the senate is preparing to consider this week. the bill which is called the bring jobs home act sets out to do what that name implies, bring good-paying jobs back to america. our tax code as a fundamental law. right now a u.s. company can decide to cut american jobs, move them overseas and then claim those expenses as a tax deduction, thereby leg the amount of taxes the company pays. so that means -- think of this. if a company decides to move 57 good-paying u.s. manufacturing jobs overseas, not only do we lose good american jobs but

taxpayers in colorado and west virginia and throughout the country are footing the bill for the cost of killing those jobs. american taxpayers literally get billed for the cost of shipping jobs overseas. and, mr. president, i just don't think it's right to be rewarding companies for cutting american jobs and i don't think it's right to ask taxpayers to subsidized the cost of moving those jobs overseas. that's why i'm cosponsoring the bring jobs home act in an effort to help provide better incentives for u.s. businesses to bring good-paying jobs back to our country and keep them here. our country is at its best when we make things here in america. so simply put, the bring jobs home act is about looking out for the best interests of coloradans, not the bottom lines of corporations who want to ship their jobs to places like china and india. now, the best thing about this legislation is not only would it end taxpayer subsidies for

outsourcing, it would very the money in markey by offering a 20% tax credit for businesses that decide to bring jobs back to the united states. mr. presi, this legislation is one piece of a larger conversation congress ought to have about what the tax code should look like in the 21st century economy. what are the values it should reflect? what are the incentives it should provide? these are important questions we need to answer, and the bring jobs home act is an initial step to achieve fair and reasonable reform. i've been a long-term proponent of the tax form to streamline and simplify the federal tax code because i'm convinced, i think like the presiding officer, that with certainty and predictability, it would lead to job growth in our country. last week colorado reported its unemployment rate was 5.5%, the lowest since 2008. we can do more, and this bill is

one of the best places to start. let's join together and support this commonsense legislation so that we can reward companies that restore and create made-in-america jobs, jobs that shore up our economy and bolster our global competitiveness. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask that i be permitted to complete my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the unique and the central role that the united states senate and our constitutional government system of government. in doing so i'm addressing the american people, whom we all serve. but my message today is intended especially for my colleagues in this body. mr. president, i had the honor of serving here for more than three decades with one of the my closest and dearest friends, the laid ted kennedy. our friendship inevitably

invited others to describe us as the senate's odd couple given the vast differences in our background, outlook and the many fights we had on the floor as well as the many successes we had together. my friendship with teddy flourished as did our legislative partnerships. even with polar opposite political philosophies, we were often able to find significant areas of mutual agreement and we both maintained a great affection for the senate, an institution to which we had each devoted most of our adult lives. during the end of his life as teddy suffered through the terrible affliction that took him from us, he watched his beloved senate with growing concern. he observed a growing dysfunction begin to overcome this body. he believed that this institution which he loved so dearly was breaking down. the man rightly described as the liberal lion of the senate concluded that this body was no longer working as it must.

mr. president, my friend teddy was right, and the senate has only gotten worse since he diagnosed it ill several years ago. the senate is more dysfunctional today than at any other point during my nearly four decades as a member of this body. i'm not alone in this assessment. former colleagues from both political bodies from chris dodd to olympia snowe has talked with compassion about the breakdown of the senate as an institution and it would be hard to find a current member of this body who in moments of honest reflex did not feel as if the senate is in many respects broken. most importantly, the american public has lost faith in this body and largely views the senate as an institution characterized by dysfunction to. say that congress is today held in low esteem is an understatement. our approval rating ranges from the teens to the single digits. one survey found that the public

has a higher opinion of burris sell sprouts -- of brussel sprouts, root canals and used car salesmen than congress. throughout my years in this body i have never seen it this bad. for the sake of our country and the well-being of our fellow citizens we must restore order and function to the senate so we can fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and once again conduct the people's business. in reflecting on the past four decades in the senate, i've come to realize that i possess an increasingly unique perspective. i've been in the majority for a total of 16 years and in the minority for a total of 22 years. i have served in this body with eight different majority leaders, four republicans and four democrats. by contrast, the majority of my colleagues -- 56 to be precise -- have served in the senate only during the tenure of the current majority leader. nearly as many have served alongside only the current

president. and these numbers will increase in the coming months with the retirement of six of our senior colleagues and the potential electoral defeat of others. to my colleagues who as a matter of firsthand experience don't know anything different, let me say this. the senate has not always been as dysfunctional as it is today. quite the opposite. until recently this chamber often lived up to its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. we regularly worked together in an orderly and constructive fashion to advance the common good and we routinely defended our institutional prerogatives against executive encroachment. unfortunately, none of that is true of the senate today. i intend to speak in greater detail later this week about what i believe ails the senate and how we can restore the health and dignity of this venerable institution. but to understand where we come from, and just how far we

strayed, we must begin at the beginning. remarking on the deliberations of the constitutional convention james madison wisely observed that in determining the form the senate should take, it was necessary to consider the purposes it would serve. the framers were clear about these objectives. the senate was to serve as a necessary fence against what they described as the fickleness and passion that drives popular pressure for hastily and ill-considered lawmaking, what edward randolph called -- quote -- "the follies of democracy." in fulfilling this purpose the senate was to be a place of thoughtful deliberation, an assembly dedicated to careful scrutiny and a body with great concern for the sovereign states and the individual liberties of all americans. these were to be the purpose of the senate, its institutional

design followed directly from these principles. the relatively small membership of the senate would amplify the importance of each individual senator as opposed to chamber leaders or large blocs. unlike in the house of representatives, where robust participation by individual members would be impossibleably cumbersome, in this body each senator could become intimately involved in all aspects of the chamber's deliberation and debate. longer terms would allow senators to resist initially popular but ultimately unwise legislation and allow for vindication of this more measured approach prior to facing reelection. staggered terms would create a body to temper unwieldy swings of public fashion. statewide constituencies would require appealing to a broader set of interests in more narrow house districts. in addition, the senate's

authority to determine its own rules would allow the gradual development of traditions and precedents unique to this body and essential to its ends. bidding upon the -- building upon the constitution's contours, these historic rules and traditions shaped the senate into a body called -- quote -- "the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics." the senate's most characteristic operating procedure became unanimous consent, which requires the agreement of not just a majority or even a supermajority, but of all senators. as senator parliamentarian emeritus robert dove testified before the rules committee in april 2010, the two key features that come to define the senate through its history are -- quote -- "the right of its members to unlimited debate and the right to offer amendments practically without limit."

with these historic rules and defining modes of operation -- unlimited debate and amendments -- the senate rightfully earned the title of the world's greatest deliberative body. in his 1897 farewell address, the first adlai stevenson, then vice president captured the essence of the senate -- quote -- "in this chamber alone are preserved without restraint two essentials of wise legislation and good government. the right of amendment and of debate. great evils often result from hasty legislation, but rarely from the delays which follows full discussion and deliberation." stevenson went on to locate in the senate's time line of rules and traditions the very foundation of our republic. "the historic senate preserving the unrestricted right of amendment and debate, maintaining intact the time

honored methods and amenities which unfailingly secure action after deliberation, possesses in our scheme of government a value which cannot be measured by words." unquote. in keeping with its institutional design and long-standing traditions throughout most of its history the senate has engaged in robust discussion and meaningful debate. rather than being dominated by partisan grand standing and cheap political theater. the senate has sought to chart a path toward the common good rather than simply messaging to particular interests or serving narrow constituencies. the senate has acted to cultivate common costs and has been able to construct compromises to advance national priorities even during times of great ideological division. throughout the senate's history, individual members have worked to develop meaningful and enduring partnerships with colleagues on both sides of the

aisle rather than marching lock step with their respective parties and simply heightening the divisions in society. mr. president, this institution has served the nation well when adhering to its enduring principles and characteristic practices. indeed for most of the last four decades, as i've witnessed firsthand the senate's robust deliberation and open amendment process, have facilitated and enabled some of the greatest legislative achievements of the modern era. one of the most historic such debates in which i took part occurred in my fifth year as a senator. president reagan took office in 1981 facing enormous challenges. stagflation, out-of-control spending, the crushing tax burden and an underfunded military. his first legislative priority was to cut marginal tax rates, restrain federal spending and bolster our national defense.

as part of the vanguard of the reagan revolution in the senate i steadfastedly supported these policies and campaigned tirelessly to enact these landmark reforms. in the democrat-controlled house, the drama unfolded predictably between party leadership and various voting blocs with conservative democrats eventually joining republicans to support what became the grand budget. but in the republican majority senate, while the debate was equally passionate, our deliberation was of a very different sort. we discussed many provisions at length and voted on dozens of amendments from senators of both parties covering a wide range of subjects. many were tough votes on heart wrenching issues from child nutrition to cost of living adjustments for seniors. we took those tough votes and made the difficult choices necessary to usher in

unprecedented economic growth. by allowing numerous votes on minority amendments, democrats received a hearing they deserved on the issues about which they cared most. having had the opportunity to fight for their causes, many of these senators rightly felt that they had done everything possible to improve the underlying bill. so when it came to final passage, the senate's budget passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 88-10. given the nature of the reforms, that margin was striking. it demonstrates that the opportunity for extended deliberation and an open amendment process tends to yield a final product that can win broad support by giving members confidence that the ultimate result ru89s -- represents the considered judgment of the whole senate. from the perspective of committed conservatives, the final amended senate bill was

far from ideal. in the end while we won support for the tax cuts that spurred growth and for the defense build-up that helped win the cold war, we could not convince congress to make meaningful cuts to federal spending or even to restrain the growth of federal spending. but to have opposed the final package because it wasn't perfect, because it only achieved some of our goals would have been madness. absent passage of the final bill's reforms, the central accomplishments of the reagan years would never have come to fruition. mr. president, in reflecting on how the senate should work, let me also commend the balanced budget act of 1997. i'm struck by the similarities between the 1996 election and the 2012 election. when voters reelect add democrat to the white house and a republican majority to the house. back then both sides understood the voters' mandate to seek

areas of agreement and to develop consensus wherever possible. in short, to set aside partisanship and work together for the common good on the critical issues of the day. republicans wanted significant tax cuts and spending controls that many democrats opposed. democrats led by my friend, senator kennedy, had for years sought an expansion of health care to uninsured children, but neither qualified for medicaid nor had families who could afford health coverage. the debate that transpired over these measures seems almost foreign in today's senate. rather than being presented as a feignal -- with a final bill as a fat fait accompli, we had a ty deliberative committee process and a meaningful floor debate and the opportunity to vote on numerous amendments. ted kennedy and i used the opportunity of an open process to make a key step toward

consensus. teddy was wise enough to realize that i shared his desire to provide health care for uninsured kids who were in need, and i recognize that he was open to innovative means of delivering that care and did not insist on an inflexible big government bureaucracy droll it. together we crafted an theament created the state's children's health insurance program, fully paid for with true state authority over the program. schip isn't beloved by ideological purists especially on the right, but i believe its approach it fully compatible with my principles and a model for a basic efficient safety net run by the states. more importantly, our partnership on this issue demonstrates how the senate ought to work. this chamber provides a unique environment. it's constructive character, its

respect for individual senators v. participation in the proficiency its form for thoughtful deliberation and open-amendment process -- without these we could never have passed exphip schip in the largest 1997 budget. that was a budget compromise of which it was a part. the same true of the religious freedom restoration act which has since served the safeguard fundamental individual liberti liberties. and the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act, which is the most important law enforcement measure of the last half-century. and so many other many landmark accomplishments of the senate during my time here. i am proud to have played a role in shaping each of these laws as part of a constructive legislative process that was possible only as a direct result of the senate's long-standing rules and traditions. without this body's

characteristic structure and mode of operation, which facilitates meaningful operation and meaningful deliberation and ultimate cooperation between diverse viewpoints, such legislative achievements could never have occurred. mr. president, throughout its history, the senate has advanced the common good, not simply through refining public opinion and translating into well-considered legislation but also because this body has defended its institutional prerogatives and essential role in our system of constitutional government. senators of both political parties have often stood up to executive encroachment, not for partisan gain or political grandstanding but in defense of congress as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, with its own essential authorities and responsibiliti

responsibilities. implicit in the constitutional design of separating the federal government's powers is the idea that each branch would have the incentive and authority to resist encroachments from the other branches ensuring that unfettered power is not concentrated in any one set of hands. the founders recognized this as an indispensable approach to pre-sesqui the individual liberty -- preserving the individual liberty of all citizens. as ma madison counseled, "the gt security against the consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others." senator robert c. byrd of virginia embodied this institutional idea as much as anyone with whom i have served. although he helped lead this body for more than a half-century and left us just four short years ago, i was

surprised and dismayed to learn that a full third of current members never served alongside him. senator byrd fiercely defended this body's prerogatives and independence against the encroachments of the executive branch, and he neither censored his criticisms nor weakened his defenses based on the president's political party. even in his twilight years when president obama took office with extraordinarily high approval ratings, senator byrd was willing to hold the new president's feet to the fire to defend the senate's right to give advice and consent to nominees. he publicly chastised the new white house for its excessive reliance on czars, observing that unconfirmed policy chieftains "can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." at the worst, white house staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are

the statutoriry responsibility of senate-confirmed officials. in addition to defending the senate against executive encroachments, senator byrd was a stalwart defender of the senate's most historic features. he re-luctantly spoke to newly elected senators admonishing each of us before we even took office to learn about the body to which we have been elected and in which we would serve. senator byrd was as good as anyone i've ever known at explaining the direct connection between the design of the senate and the liberty that all americans cherish. in november 1996, for example, when speaking to the incoming freshman senators, he stressed the two most critical and distinguishing features of the senate's operation. like so many other students of the senate, he steadfastly maintained that -- quote -- "as long as the senate retains the power to amend and the power of

unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure." unquote. that was robert c. byrd, one of the leading democrats of all time. throughout his time in this body, senator byrd never abandoned this message. he stood up for the senate's defining characteristics, no matter which party was in the majority, and no matter who occupied the oval office. he even took on his own president from time to time. a few months before his death in 2010, he wrote to his colleagues identifying the right to amend and the right to debate as -- quote -- "essential to the protection of the liberties of a free people." unquote. mr. president, we need a renewed dedication to the special role of the senate and its snuggal prerogatives that senator byrd exemplified so well. he was right to counsel incoming colleagues to -- quote -- "study

the senate in its institutional context because that is the best way to understand your personal role as a united states senator. you must find the time to reflect, to study, to read, and especially to understand the absolutely critically important institutional role of the senate." unquote. many of my colleagues, even those who who rarely agree, have the potential to be great senators and statesman, worthy stewards of i this institution, zealous guardians of its prerogatives, and true defenders of our role in our constitutional system of government. but, sadly, blinded by partisan loyalty to the president or it o inexperienced to understand the senate from any other perspective than have a like-minded senate majority and president, too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have allowe allowed, n facilitated, the breakdown of the senate's vital institutions and role.

from our right to debate and amend through regular order, to our role giving advice and consent to the president's nominees, the senate has emasculated itself. by doing so, we only abandon our responsibilities, discard our authorities, and lay ourselves process straight before a -- prostate before a politically destructive president. it is past time to restore the senate's rightful place in our constitutional order. i urge my colleagues, both democrats and republicans, to join me, to stand up and fight for the greatness of this body, and start standing for the rights and the powers of the legislative branch. that's what we're here to do, in addition to enacting good laws. but you can't enact really good laws without full and fair debate, without full and fair right to amendments. this is a great body, but it has gone downhill a long way over

the last number of years. no president deserves total fealty by this body or by his party members in this body. his or her party members in this body. all i can say is, it's time for us to start acting like the senate, time for us to have full and fair debate. it's time for us to have open amendments, and that goes for democrats and republicans. i want to thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i suggest -- i would ask that we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak about something that i think we should all be able to agree on, and that is that every american, every american worker deserves a fair shot to get ahead. that's one of the great things about our country is that has been a fundamental value or belief, and we need to make sure that that value still holds in america right now. you work hard, you have a chance to have a fair shot to get ahead. american workers are the best in

the world. i can tell you that coming from michigan, whereby w where we mas and grow things and are very rowd of it. they can outcompete anyone and will win in a fair fight. unfortunately, too often the fight is not fair today. we see a tax system that's really rigged against jobs in america too many times, and we need to fix that. right now our tax code contains a shocking loophole that forces taxpayers to foot the bill when companies move jobs overseas. i think most americans would say what? say that again. what? companies packing up and leaving the country, and the tax code is rewarding it, and we're paying for it? workers are forced to pay to ship their own jobs overseas to china or mexico or other places around the world, and that is

something that is very difficult to understand and believe. not only do you get laid off, but then you turn around and through tax write-offs, you're forced to pay for something your own job oversees. communities see a factory closed and through their taxes they end up paying for that empty factory in the community, which we've seen way too many in michigan. our country sees that. this is really outrageous and it's long past due to end, and the good news is we have a chance to fix it. we have a chance to fix it tomorrow together on a bipartisan basis. i hope we'll have 100 votes of people saying we want to proceed to the bring jobs home act. i want to thank senator walsh for taking the lead, senator walsh from montana. he has very specific stories to tell about what's happened in

montana. senator mark pryor from arkansas, the same. very passionate about this. and i'm very pleased to have the opportunity to join with them as we lead this effort to stand with american businesses who want to stay in america and workers, families and communities that we send a very strong message about what we think our tax code should incentivize by passing the bring jobs home act. and we'll have a chance to do that tomorrow. it's very simple. it closes really outrageous tax loopholes that foots the bill for companies that moves jobs overseas and replaces it with a tax credit that rewards companies for coming home. in the great state of michigan we make things. it is part of our identity, source of pride and the backbone

of who we are. it is the backbone of the middle class, quite frankly. i don't think we have a middle class unless we make things and grow things, which is what we do in michigan. i know we do that in west virginia. i know we do that around the country. and it's certainly what has created the middle class of this country. but here's what we've seen because of a number of things. and one of those is the tax code that doesn't make sense in terms of keeping jobs here. between 2000 and 2009, the last ten years, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas. now, we have a lot of different ways that we want to turn that around. in fact, it is being turned around for a number of reasons now. we're beginning to see that come back. but 2.4 million jobs shipped overseas. and to add insult to injury, the american taxpayers were asked to foot the bill. that's just the bottom line. so what you see is people who have worked all their lives for

a paycheck get a pink slip instead. they played by the rules, but they were left on the sidelines. the company takes the jobs overseas and gets a tax break for shipping jobs. when the tax code creates incentives to ship jobs overseas, that's a sign that there's something seriously wrong, and we have an opportunity to fix it. it starts tomorrow. our chair of the finance committee, senator wyden from oregon, believes this as fiercely as i do that we need to fix this. and i'm so proud to be a part of his committee. i know he's committed to making our system more competitive in a global economy. we need to do that. but right now we can close a tax loophole. we have to close a tax loophole so that we can stop the flow of jobs going overseas. that's the least we can do.

in fact, we should be adding to this first step, stop paying for the move. the next thing we ought to be doing is closing down the loophole that allows folks to act like they're moving on paper in versions where they don't actually move the plant. and we ought to be focusing instead on how we're all on this ship together in america paying our fair share and moving the country forward, creating jobs, opportunity, strengthening the middle class. we still have more jobs leaving than coming back, but we do have a number of companies that are doing the right thing, and we need to really support them. the smart thing that they're doing is bringing jobs back and they're bringing them back to michigan, to states all across the country. and we say welcome back, and we say thank you. we should reward these companies. and for those companies who are still on the fence about whether or not to bring jobs back to america, we should help them make up their mind by giving

them new tax incentives. and so the bring jobs home act will not only end the practice of allowing companies to deduct the expenses of sending a job overseas, it will also allow companies coming back to deduct their expenses and give them an additional 20% tax credit for the cost of bringing jobs back. so this is very, very simple. stop the subsidy that's paying for shipping our jobs overseas. allow the tax write-off to bring jobs back, and add to it an additional tax cut of 20% in order to be able to support our companies that are doing the right thing. now we've got a lot of examples of companies doing the right thing right now. for example, whirlpool realized it needed to respond more quickly to customer requests in the u.s. and canada so they moved their washing machine

manufacturing operations back from mexico and germany and into ohio. g.e. used to make its hybrid water heater in china. the company needed to trim international shipping costs and wanted more control of their product, and they brought manufacturing of appliances back to the united states. but we're not just talking about manufacturing jobs, which of course are so very important. again, g.e. realized it needed the kind of i.t. engineering talent it could only find in michigan, mr. president. and so work that was being done in india is now being done in van buren township in michigan as they have brought jobs home. we know that because of the explosion in natural gas and the current low prices, this is an incentive. i want to thank the presiding officer, mr. president, for your understanding of that and the importance of supporting american manufacturing, american

businesses. we have a number of advantages right now to bring jobs home, to create jobs in america, including not only low energy costs, but the finest workers in the world. we have creative minds with new ideas and hard work and innovation at university labs and public research and public-private partnerships that are going on, forging technology, powering world-class innovation. so there's a lot that we can be proud of, and manufacturing is in fact coming back. and i'm proud of the fact that part of that is the fact that we stood with our american automobile industry at a time when they needed america to be with them and keep manufacturing jobs. more than 12 million americans are working in manufacturing today. we created 7,000 new manufacturing jobs in michigan

just last month alone. so if we have the right policies, we can continue to keep that going. but when we put in place a situation and we're at such, i think, a tipping point on this, but if we have a situation where we're saying, okay, you can write off the move. you can write off the move and, hey, you don't even have to move. you can just change the paperwork, going through these changes. and still get all the benefits of america. the cleanest air and water and our innovation, education and roads and all the things that are great about america. but, you know, you're allowed to just change the paperwork and avoid contributing as americans to strengthening and be a part of our country. so we're at a tipping point, and we've got to make some changes that make it very clear whose side we're on. if we really want everybody to

have a fair shot, part of that is starting with a tax code that actually incentivizes a fair shot, not a system that is rigged against the people going to work every day, work them hard trying to get ahead, playing by the rules, all the things that we've grown up believing were the right thing to do in america, we've got to make sure the tax code reflects the right values and the right policies. so we're at a point now where we need to put in place the bring jobs home act that's going to nudge some of those companies. we need to make some other changes that are going to make it very, very clear that we want and are committed to jobs in america, manufacturing in america, i.t. innovation in america, all the other things that we can do so well. you know, if we don't speed this up, mr. president, at the current rate of jobs coming

home, it's going to take us 100 years to bring back all the jobs that we've lost through outsourcing. we can do better than that. we have to do better than that. the good news is we have the power to speed up this process by putting in place the right policies, giving the companies that want to do the right thing the right incentives, the incentives to bring jobs home. it's time for our tax code to stop working against workers, families, communities, and the businesses who are in america and start working for americans, for the american middle class. it's smart tax policy that we're talking about. i just think it's plain old common sense. people in michigan kind of look at this and go what are you even debating this for? why do you have to have a motion about proceeding to this bill? why isn't that something

everybody just agrees to on a voice vote? people can't believe that we're doing this in our tax code. so this is a very important step, and we can do this on a bipartisan basis. i know that we have colleagues that are concerned about what's happening on both sides of the aisle. now is the time to show that we can come together and make sure that we have the jobs that we want for our children and our grandchildren, the next generation. i hope we see an overwhelming bipartisan vote tomorrow. i can't think of a single reason why anybody would be opposed to the bring jobs home bill. why would anyone be opposed to giving every american a fair shot, giving every worker a fair shot to a good job and the ability to care for their families and get ahead? a strong bipartisan vote will send a really wonderful message that we can work together, that

we get it, that this country will not succeed if it's just about a privileged few and everybody else losing ground, losing a grip on the middle class or having no chance to get in the middle class. this is an opportunity with our vote tomorrow to not only bring jobs home but support the american middle class. thank you, mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: mr. president, today i rise to recognize the 60th anniversary of a rhode island institution, the newport jazz festival. at this time i would like to yield to my colleague, senator whitehouse, for his reflections on the newport jazz festival. after he speaks, i will give my statement on this remarkable rhode island event. i would yield now to my colleague, senator whitehouse.

mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. the presiding officer: senator whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: i'm delight that had senator reed organized for the two of us to come down to the floor today. newport, rhode island, is a venue for many wonderful and remarkable events from the america's cup of the old day to the volvo around the world ocean races now to the newport folk festival and of course what we're here to celebrate today is the newport jazz festival, celebrating its 60th anniversary. since 1954, this festival has provided generations of rhode islanders and visiters with -- visitors with the opportunity to enjoy some of the world's finest jazz music. it has brought countless visitors to the ocean state to witness these performances and enjoy our rhode island beaches and other amenities. the newport jazz festival as the brain child of elaine and louis laurelard as a way to bring some

outdoor excitement and activity to newport during the summer. in what would become a historic partnership, they reached out to george wein, a boston jazz club owner, to help them organize the event. their creation became one of the first dedicated jazz festivals in the united states and ultimately came to shape the genre in ways they never could have anticipated. the first festival was held on july 17 and 18, 1954, and included some of the finest performers ever to brace the stage, including ella fitzgerald, billy holliday and dizzy gillespie. held at the newport belle view avenue historic district, that first festival included outdoor performances that allowed attendees to sit on the lawn and enjoy a beautiful rhode island summer day while reveling in the iewsk. the event garnered national media attention and it drew over

13,000 people to newport on its very first start. in the 60 years since that first festival, newport has served as the backdrop for some of the most notable performances in the history of jazz. it was at the newport jazz festival that miles davis first introduced the world to what would become known as hard bop jazz, mixing in sounds from the blues and gospel music. duke ellington's performance at the 1956 festival of dimuendo and crescendo in blue is considered one of the single greatest performances in the history of jazz and revitalized ellington's career. a number of performances at the festival have gone on to be released as independent albums, including acts from ella fitzgerald, ray charles, nina simone and charles davis. the list of performances goes on with every year bringing a new crop of musicians to put their own mark on the festival's history and on their art form. since its original partnering

with the laurelards in 1953, george has gone on to replicate his success in newport throughout the country, while maintaining rhode island's event as the flagship in the industry, and he will do so again, mr. president, this year, still going strong as he closes in on his 89th birthday. under his leadership, on friday, august 1, newport will welcome thousands of eager music lovers looking to hear the best performers in modern jazz. the ticket this year includes wynton marsalis, trombone shorty, david sanborn and many others. additionally, in commemoration of this 60th anniversary, the festival will, for the first time, run for three full days, with shows lasting through the weekend. the festival nowadays no longer takes place at the newport casino, as it has outgrown that original home, and it has expanded to three stages that get set up on narragansett bay

at historic fort adams state park, looking out on the newport bridge and the east passage with the ships sailing by. however, the newport jazz festival still provides guests with the same opportunity it did 60 years ago -- to come and enjoy the rhode island summer and hear up close some of the finest jazz in the world. and so, mr. president, i join my senior colleague senator reed in applauding the city of newport for its outstanding commitment to the arts, and i thank so many dedicated individuals who have worked so hard over those 60 years to keep this wonderful tradition alive. i look forward to another 60 years of amazing jazz in rhode island and once again thank my senior senator for organizing us to be here together for this recognition. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, let me thank senator whitehouse for his eloquent remarks about the jazz festival, which is a great rhode island institution.

indeed, it's a great american institution. the newport jazz festival owes its beginnings to the vision and financial backing of elaine and louis laurelard who back in 1954 wanted to do something with jazz in their community, newport. through their collaboration with george wein, a jazz pianist and club owner with a vision, the jazz festival was born. today the festival has grown to be one of the largest and most well-known jazz festivals in the nation. indeed, i would say the world, attracting a whole new generation of artists and music fans. it also helped pave the way for the creation of the newport folk festival, another pillar of the music festival community. george wein, in producing the newport jazz festival, did not set out to change the world. he set out to make great music. but as history has shown, great music and great art can change the world. and what george wein did over many summers was produce something more than

extraordinary festivals. he produced the soundtrack of freedom for a generation of americans. since its founding, the newport jazz festival has been a -- an eclectic range of performers at the peak of their art. establishing their credentials while in many cases embellishing those credentials through their performance. from duke ellington to frank sinatra to led zeppelin and the newport jazz festival has seen them all, its ongoing mission is to celebrate the jazz and make its case for relevance. the 60th anniversary stays true to the core mission. it will kick off on august 21, 2014, and is scheduled to feature a variety of talent over three days, including wynton marcellis policing with the jazz, trombone shorty and dr. john. it will also include one musician who played at the

inaugural newport jazz festival, lee conin. newport continues to attract top-notch performers and is still a must-see event for jazz and music aficionados alike. i would also like to recognize the impact of the newport jazz festival has had and continues to have on our great state of rhode island. each year, the thousands who flock to newport to witness the festival also have an opportunity to experience the treasure of rhode island's summer. in this way, the newport jazz festival has served as a major source of tourism, an important industry for our state, and should be viewed as a model for other communities to follow. i am proud to call the newport jazz festival a home state event. on this milestone anniversary, i wish to congratulate my dear friend, george wein, the festival's board, and all those who have worked and those who continue to work to put this outstanding event forward each year. best wishes on a successful 60th anniversary festival and

for continued success in the future. and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 510, submitted earlier today by myself and senator whitehouse. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 510, congratulating the newport jazz festival on its 60th anniversary. mr. reed: mr. president -- the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. reed: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. with that, i would yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak about a pressing issue, really a crisis, and i don't use that word lightly, of some 52,000 unaccompanied alien children streaming across our southern border with mexico

coming into our country and that number is continuing to grow. in fact, the obama administration itself says that that number could reach 90,000 or more by the end of the fiscal year, october 1, in just a few months. and, again, as i said, this is a crisis on many levels. it's a border crisis, it's a national security crisis, it's a humanitarian crisis. it's a fiscal issue for our country. it is a very serious situation. i talked about it on the floor last week, laid out broadly speaking, the policy response i think we need to have so this flow does not continue and to continue to grow. today i come back to the floor and i want to talk about two things, specifics i've learned about how this crisis is specifically affecting louisiana, i'm real concerned about that, i'm sure every

member here is concerned about direct impacts on their state. and number two, legislation i've introduced to directly respond to this crisis. and, again, it is a real crisis. louisiana, just in the last week or so i've learned a number of things that are significant and that continue to raise my concerns. i wrote the secretary of homeland security asking a number of detailed questions some time ago, including about louisiana impacts. unfortunately, i've heard nothing from the department. i've gotten no response yet to that letter. and i'm going to follow up and get a response. but in the meantime, these are specifics i'm hearing from other reliable sources. first of all, the her shall coliseum in shreveport, louisiana has been contacted apparel by the department of

homeland security about locating space for the housing of illegal minors in the hirsh coliseum, setting up a camp specifically for that. no member of our delegation was contacted. i had asked specific questions about any activity impacting louisiana. i wasn't told. but there were -- they were contacted directly. this isn't happening. it's impractical. it can't happen at the hirsch coliseum. they have a lot of things they need to do there so i don't think there is any chance of this sort of detention facility being set up there but they were contacted. in addition thousands of new i.c.e. cases regarding unaccompanied alien children. first of all, before the current crisis began, there was a backlog of these cases, of these u.a.c.'s being sent to louisiana with family members or

sponsors. a backlog of about 2,000 cases. then apparently since this crisis has started developing in the last several months, we have 1,259 new juvenile cases for louisiana alone. that's a significant number for a state the size of louisiana. these are folks being sent, we believe through the chicago detention facility, to be united with family members or other sponsors in louisiana. again, this is exactly the sort of thing i'd asked the department of homeland security about. i haven't gotten any response to my letter. i haven't gotten any official formal response to my specific questions. we've had to learn of this ferreting through other sources, talking to some i.c.e. officials and others directly. this is really concerning. 23 this is going on in louisiana, it's going on in every state of the country and

it underscores what a serious situation and, in fact, a crisis on many different levels, this is. that's why last week i introduced legislation to try to address this very serious situation, this border crisis. i introduced s. 2632 to address specifically the u.a.c. issue. let me outline broadly what it would do and broughtly speaking, it would make sure that we detain these individuals, don't release them to relatives, family members, sponsors, don't release them out into society, but detain them and have a much quicker, more efficient process for deporting them and returning them to their home countries. specifically, we would have mandatory detention of all unaccompanied alien children or u.a.c.'s upon apprehension.

number two, we would amend tvpra to bring parity between u.a.c.'s from contiguous and noncontiguous countries. as most senators know we have a more streamlined, workable process for unaccompanied alien children from configure with us children, namely mexico as well as canada but it's much more of an issue with mexico. we would bring noncontiguous countries apart from mexico into the same category and treat those aliens the same way. third, those u.a.c.'s that do not voluntarily depart, which is part of the process with dealing with mexican u.a.c.'s will be immediately placed in a streamlined removal process and detained by the department of homeland security. currently, u.a.c.'s are transferred to h.h.s. and their office of refugee resettlement

where they quite, frankly disappear into the united states. they're reunified with parents or sponsors living in the united states, often illegally, what that means as a practical matter is they essentially disappear into our country. fourth, anyone with gang affiliations, whether those affiliations are renounced or not, will be immediately placed in expedited removal proceedings under i.n.a. 235-b and therefore that would make them ineligible for asylum status. fifth, we would raise the standard for asylum determinations from a standard where it is now -- quote -- "credible fear" which is extremely subjective and quite frankly an objective that is too easy to meet simply by repeating the magic words which they learn about as they come here. we would raise that standard

from "credible fear" to" substantiated fear of persecution." sixth, within 72 hours of an initial screening all u.a.c.'s found not to have a claim for asylum will be given a final removal order and placed on their the next available flight to their home country subject to determinations of cost, feasibility and any repatriation agreements with their home country. seventh, a final order of removal is not subject to review and stands as a minimum ten-year bar to reenter. eight, upon apprehension, biometric data will be collected for future use for enforcement use and ninth and finally, the department of homeland security will report annually to congress on the number of apprehensions,

the number of removals, the number of voluntary departures, et cetera, and specifically in no event shall a voluntary departure be counted as a deportation. now, what does all this mean? it's a very detailed bill, we put great time and effort into the specifics of the legislation. you need to get the specifics right. but what does it mean? it means that we're stopping catch and release. it means we're stopping simply releasing these folks out into the country to family members or to sponsors where they're usually never heard of again. they don't show up for court dates. they don't respond to any enforcement actions. so catch and release is a complete failure because it essentially means being released in the country for an extended period of time. and it means we retain, control, and detention and then have a

quick, efficient process for removing them from the country. that's the only way we're going to stem this increasing flow, still increasing, still the numbers mounting and mounting and mounting of unaccompanied alien children. you know, i called this a crisis at the beginning of my remarks, and it is. it's a crisis on many different levels. it's a border crisis. it's a law enforcement crisis. it's a fiscal issue. and as many folks, particularly on the left, have said, and they're right, it is a humanitarian crisis. and the biggest threat to these individuals in humanitarian terms is the fact that they're entrusted and put in the hands of criminal elements, outright criminal gangs, often drug lords, drug gangs, coyotes, folks who do not have their best interest in mind.

and very often in that process, they are abused in multiple ways. that is a humanitarian travesty. that is a humanitarian crisis. the problem is we have a policy right now that encourages that, and that encourages that treatment and those numbers to grow and not to be brought back down to zero. we need a different policy that discourages that, that stops that. and fundamentally the way you d that is to apprehend these individuals, don't release them out into the country, which means their smuggling operation has been successful. but illegal gang smuggling operation has met with success. but quickly, efficiently deport them back to their home country. that is the only action that will reverse the message that's gone out far and wide in central and south america. send your minors, because

president obama had an executive order that says we won't prosecute them. so send your minors. that's the message that's been heard. that's the fundamental message we have to reverse. and you only reverse that message if you reverse the policy, through specific actions like this. this is a graph and it shows very clearly that deportations of this class of illegal aliens has plummeted under president obama. plummeted. now, president obama himself often points to a change in the law in 2008 that was part of that equation. he complained about that for weeks and weeks when this crisis first hit the front page of the paper. the problem is when it came to his proposal sent to congress about how to deal with the crisis, he didn't ask for any of that law to be changed. he didn't ask for any new

authority to expedite the removal process. all he asked for was $3.9 billion largely for the housing and feeding of these aliens, not for exe indicted and -- expedited and effective removal. so that's what we need to change. this trend line is what we need to change in order to address the problem and stop this mounting flow, this crisis at our border. i hope we act in a responsible way by adopting this sort of policy and catch and release, detain these folks. of course treat them humanely. provide what we need to provide for them in the limited period of time that we detain them. but don't release them into the country with family members, often other illegals or sponsors. detain them and deport them back to their home countries. that's the only appropriate

response that will stop this crisis from continuing to grow and stop the abuses and the humanitarian crisis from continuing to grow. i encourage my colleagues to come around this commonsense solution. the american people already have. have a town hall meeting on this in your state. i don't care what state you come from. look at polling on this. the american people have already reached this commonsense consensus. the question is, is washington going to catch up and follow? are we going to reach the same commonsense consensus and respond in a commonsense way that solves the problem rather than just growing it or throwing money at it? i encourage all of us, mr. president, from both sides of the aisle to come together around this sort of consensus approach. of course i favor the specific he legislation i have filed,

s. 2632. but it doesn't have to be exactly that vehicle. it does have to be that general approach to stop this mounting flood of illegals at our southern border, to deal with this crisis, including the humanitarian crisis effectively, rather than continuing to deal with it in a way where the numbers, the burden, the crisis, the abuses continue to grow. in closing, mr. president, let me say that i'm, again, very concerned, as i'm sure every member in this body is, about specific impacts on my state. i mentioned some of those impacts. i didn't get those details from the department of homeland security, even though i specifically asked for them from the department. i've gotten no real cooperation or information from the department. i've had to search these out

from other reliable sources. i'm going to continue to do that. i'm going to continue to get that word out to louisianians because they deserve to know what we as a state and what our communities may be dealing with. but i would hope in the meantime that the department of homeland security would actually answer my letter, answer my questions, give us the details directly so that we all know exactly what we're dealing with as a country and in our individual states. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

harass madam president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senator iowa. mr. harkin: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. harass madam president, this is a very important week -- mr. harkin: madam president, this is a very important week for americans with disabilities. just a few hours ago at the white house the president signed the workforce investment and opportunity act, which includes a reauthorization of the rehabilitation act. this will ensure that young people with disabilities have the skills and experiences to enter competitive integrated work settings and will be ready to be economically self-sufficient. one of the key goals of the americans with disabilities act. now, this bill received extraordinary bipartisan support from an overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans. the final vote in the house was 415-6, and the final vote in the senate was 95-3. this was a great testament to the bipartisan support in

congress for advancing the rights anrights and opportunitif people with disabilities in the united states. also this week on saturday, july 26, we will celebrate the 24th anniversary of the signing of the americans with disabilities act which then-president george herbert walker bush. as the chief senate sponsor of this law in 1990, i worked closely with senate and house colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both the house and the senate to vangts bill. again, we -- to advance the bill. again, we couldn't have succeeded without the strong and active support of then a republican president, george h.w. bush and key members of his cabinet. when we passed the a.d.a., as it's known, 24 years ago, the vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan. we passed it in the senate 91-6. in the house it was 303-20.

not only were the votes bipartisan, th arduous work of crafting the a.d.a. and getting to that point was also bipartisan. i worked shoulder to shoulder with indispensable partners including boyden gray, president bush's white house counsel; attorney general richard thornburgh, the attorney general of the united states at that time, and here in the senate with senator bob dole, who was so key in helping us to move this legislation forward at that time. senator dole was instrumental. in fact, i always remind my colleagues that the first speech that senator dole ever gave on the senate for that when he was elected to the senate, his maiden speech, was on that topic, the topic of people with disabilities and their rights and what should be more

opportunity for people with americans with disabilities acts. it is a great speech. and so i think it's also noteworthy that today is senator dole's birthday. and so i -- and i'm sure my colleagues would join with me in wishing senator dole a happy birthday today and to recommit ourselves, as he did at that time, to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that people with disabilities not only in this country but around the world have more opportunities to live a full and meaningful life. so, happy birthday, bob dole. we've worked together for a long time on these issues. and today is another interesting day. tailed the senate foreign relations -- today, the senate foreign relations committee passed out of the committee the united nations treaty on disabilities, formerly known as the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

and i'm going to have more to say about that. before i go any further, i ask unanimous consent that anika grass l and angela west, interns with the senate healt help comme be granted floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection. harass harem going to have the major part of my remarks today about the united nations treaty, now known at convention on the rights of people with disabilities or, the shorthand version is crpd, as it's known here and globally. mr. harkin: for most of our recent history, support for disability rights has had broad support across the political spectrum. but now at full senate looks ahead to consideration of the convention on the rights of people with disabilities, we're beginning to see an erosion in the bipartisan support for disability policy. now, again, i want to make it

clear, the foreign relations committee reported the bill out this morning on a 12-6 vote. it was bipartisan. now, i think, first of all, a couple things are in order. first, a recap of the history and, secondly, a very profound "thank you" to senator bob menendez for his tremendous leadership in crafting and getting this bill through this congress, in his committee. i've spoken with senator menendez many times about this issue. he has been dogged in his pursuit of getting a bill and getting it through the committee and to the senate floor, and it hasn't been easy, quite frankly. and, again, i will recap a little bit of that history for the benefit of my fellow senators, who may not follow this as closely as i have followed it.

now, again, this convention came through the committee this morning. it's now awaiting a 24-hour layover before it can go on the executive calendar. now, as i said, there's been some erosion in the bipartisan support for disability policy, but it's limited, because most republicans, i think, and democrats agree that there's no objective reason for partisan dis-chord when it comes to disability rights. senator john mccain, again a tremendous supporter of disability rights who was with us when we passed the a.d.a. in 1990 and who was again a strong supporter at that time and has been a strong supporter of the individuals with disabilities education act, other things dealing with disability rights,

the disability act amendments that we passed in 2008 -- so, senator mccain has long been a strong supporter of enhancing and improving the rights of people with disabilities to have a full and meaningful life here, to be able to have the opportunity to go to school, to learn, to be educated, and to have meaningful work and to live independently. so here's what senator mccain said this morning in support of this disability treaty: "ratifying this treaty affirms our leadership on disability rights and shows that the rest of the world our leadership commitment continues." senator mark kirk, not a member of the committee, but has said this about the treaty. "he want to say, as a recently disabled american, how important it is to adopt this convention. too often we have a problem of thinking of our veterans as victims, but they are victors.

this convention allows people to become victors instead of victims." end quote. and again, one of the true giants of the senate, former senator bob dole, whom i mentioned is today is his birthday, here is what he had to vasay about this treaty, this disability treaty: "u.s. ratification of the crpd will increase the ability of the united states to improve physical, technological, and communication access in other countries, thereby helping to ensure that americans, particularly many thousands of disabled american veterans, have equal opportunities to live, work, and travel abroad." end quote. the fact is, madam president, this treaty is supported by many respected, thoughtful, conservative republican leaders. i could cite many more statements from colleagues and other republicans. the simple truth is that

republican leaders who care deeply about our nation's sovereignty are equally passionate in their support of this disability treaty. so the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities did not need to be and it should not be a partisan issue, despite the misguided efforts of some to make it so. it's deeply unfortunate that nature rel--narrowly focused spl interest groups, with interests far afield of the consensus, have tried to drag this treaty into partisan warfare. these groups have spread fear about some imaginary, hypothetical, unreal loss of u.s. sovereignty to try to scare parents into thinking that they'll lose control over the education of their children or they won't be able to home-school their children, or

they've raised the issue of abortion, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this treaty. none of these are relevant to or are embedded in the treaty. what we're seeing here is an effort by some narrow special interest groups to advance their agendas by making utterly unfounded claims about the disability treaty. so, again, this is something that we should not be listening to. we should listen to the voice of the better angels of our nature. this is an important convention, an important treaty. now, i know even as recently as this morning, i heard that in the foreign relations committee some would raise the issue of sovereignty. well, madam president, we've passed a lot of treaties here in the past, lots of treaties over the lifetime of our nation.

are we less sovereign today than we were ten years ago? are we less sovereign than we were 30, 50, 100 years ago? well, i'd have to have somebody approve to me how we've lost our sovereignty. we haven't. not at all. and in every treaty that we signed in the past, there's always a clause in the reservations, understandings, and declarations that attach to the resolution that we pass here on a treaty, there's owls's owl- there is you a always one clause that's attached. it says, "supremacy of constitution: nothing in the convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the united states of america that is prohibited by the constitution of the united states, as interpreted by the united states."

that's it. that goes on every treaty that we sign. it says, look, we're signing the treaty, but our constitution is supreme. and that nothing in this treaty requires or authorizes any action by the united states of america, prohibited by the constitution, as interpreted by the united states of america. well, who interprets the constitution i? the supreme court. but then we can always pass amendments and change it, by the united states of america. so, we have proffered that this is the same language we ought to attach to this convention, the convention on the rights of people with disabilities. well, someone said, well, but we don't know what the united nations is is going to do in the future? we don't know how they might want to change it or something. it makes no difference. it makes no difference what the u.n. does in the future. our constitution is still supreme, and this is the clause that we put on there to say so. we do it on every treaty.

we just passed a treaty here in 1999 that i was involved in. it is a treaty on -- a convention on the worst forms of child labor. it has that clause in there. we didn't give up any of our sovereignty. -- by agreeing to that convention on child labor. and we won't give up any of our sovereignty here. so anyone who is saying that they're concerned about our sovereignty on this convention, we can put that clause in there, as we have with every other treaty. and there are some senators here who were here when we passed that treaty in 1999, and they dunts say anything -- and they didn't say anything about sovereignty understand that they were concerned about -- and that they were concerned about sovereignty. but now some are saying, they're concerned about sovereignty when it deals with people with disabilities. why? why? why? in 1999 we passed a convention

dealing with the worst forms of child labor, a good treaty, by the way. no one here raised the issue of sovereig--no one here raised thf sovereign tivment 15 years ago later we've a convention on the treat for people with disabilities. no, we're worried about sovereign tivment will someone please explain this to me. it's not about sovereignty. anyone who is hiding behind that issue does not want to vote for this treaty for some other reason. but it can't be the reason of sovereignty. now, again, madam president, we have to look a little bit at the history of this bill. the drafters of the convention modeled it after the americans with disabilities act. you read it and you look at the

a.d.a., we inform the -- and i've talked to people who have been involved in this. we, our laws, inform the u.n. as to what they ought to do in drafting this convention. and why shouldn't we then be a part of it, take the expertise we have and apply it globally? and so, it was drafted, it was sent out to nations for their adoption. it was sent to our president under our system. the president sends this proposed treaty out to all the departments of the executive branch, including the office of management and budget, to see what budget impact it will have. and their charge is to see what laws do we have to change in order to comply with this treaty, or what budget impact does it have. well, that takes about a year to get this through all the

departments and agencies. when it came back to the president, guess what? we don't have to change one law. not one to conform to this treaty because the treaty is based on our laws basically under the americans with disabilities act. so we don't have to change any laws. secondly, there is no budget impact. so then the president sent it down to the senate for ratification under our constitution. then-senator kerry was the chair of the foreign relations committee. he had hearings. in fact, the two leadoff witnesses were senator john mccain and me. there were other witnesses from the business community, from all over. the bill was reported out of the committee, i believe, in july of 2012. we were not able to get it on the floor until december of

2012. 38 republican senators had signed a letter saying that we should not vote on a treaty -- on a treaty -- in a lame-duck session. then there were some other things that came up about home schooling and stuff like that. to make a long story short when we brought it on the floor because we thought we had the votes, we fell six votes short. we had 61 votes. we needed 67. a lot of senators told me at that time we shouldn't be voting on this in a lame duck session. in fact, if you check the record, you will see remarks made by a lot of members on the republican side saying we shouldn't vote on this in a lame duck session. well, okay. that congress dies. we now have a new congress starting in 2013. then chairman kerry becomes secretary of state and our new chairman is senator bob menendez

of new jersey. and so, we started working to bring it back. again, it has to come right back from the white house. it has to go back to the hurdles. it has to go back to the committee. i talked a couple of times with the ranking member of the foreign relations committee, and he wanted to have some more hearings. so i talked to senator menendez about it. senator menendez agreed, and he held more hearings on it in this congress, in this congress. and a lot of voices were heard. a lot of people testified on it. and so, then it has to work its way through the committee. the committee has been very busy on a lot of things, but senator menendez never gave up. and so this morning, as i stated, earlier this morning the senate foreign relations committee reported the bill out. and i am so grateful to senator menendez for not giving up, for being dogged and providing that kind of leadership to get this

bill through. so now, now it's ready for us to bring up here. well, guess what? we're not in a lame-duck session. so that excuse has gone by the wayside. and we have answered, i believe the questions on sovereignty and other issues. so now we have to look at who supports this now. well, i know that some people are kind of nervous about the bill and voting for it because they were concerned, quite frankly, foyer their political life -- concerned quite frankly for their political life. i guess some people in the tea party were making this sort of a litmus test, which i thought was kind of interesting. why? why this of all things? and so, what we did is we wanted to see how broad the support was out there. and it is immense.

the support for this treaty cuts across all lines. the u.s. chamber of commerce, tom donohue, strong supporters of it, wrote a very strong letter and has been contacting senators about the chamber of commerce's support for this treaty. i spoke a couple of months ago with former governor engler, i don't know engler who is now the head of the business round table. i informed him about it, and he said they would look at it, they would consider it. and so he took it to his business round table about a little over a month ago, i believe, if i'm not mistaken. and the business round table wrote a very strong letter of support for this. so two of the leading business groups in america supporting this strongly. every veterans group supports it. the american legion, the v.f.w.,

the p.v.a., you name it, the iraq-afghanistan war veterans all support this. all support this. every major religious group supports it. all the disability groups support it. so what are we afraid of? what are we afraid of? some people say, well, they're concerned about the sovereignty issue again. are you telling me that former president george h.w. bush isn't concerned about our sovereignty? are you telling me that former governor -- former president george w. bush isn't concerned about our sovereignty? are you trying to tell me that the chamber of commerce and the business round table aren't concerned about our sovereignty? or that tom ridge, former governor of pennsylvania, the first director of homeland security, who strongly supports this treaty, you're telling me

he doesn't care about our sovereignty? is there just a few people on this side of the aisle that know what sovereignty means? of course not. of course not. george h.w. bush, president george w. bush, former attorney general dick thornburgh, boyden gray, former counsel of the president; steve bartlet, former congressman, republican from dallas, mayor of dallas, came back, ran the financial services round table, strong supporter of this. strong supporter of this. are you telling me steve doesn't care about our sovereignty? i'd like you to tell steve that. he cares very much about our sovereignty. that's why it's a phony issue. fraudulent, phony issue. and so, we have it within our power now to join the rest of the world. i think 148 nations -- 148

countries have now signed this. have now signed it. i was recently in china, and i was meeting with disability groups in china. now, china signed the convention. so i met with some disability groups who are not governmental, n.g.o.'s, which is interesting this is now springing up in china. and i also met with a person who is the head of the federation of disability groups in china. madam zhang, heidi zhang. very prominent woman in china, known all over the country because she is a famous author. and she now heads this federation. they all told me that they wanted the united states to be a part of this because it would

strengthen them in working to change in their country, to make their country better and more supportive of disability rights. i question that, because some people have said to me here we don't need to join this treaty. we can work with countries one on one. you're going to work with 100 countries one on one? i don't think we have the personnel to do that. but here's what someone said to me that brought it home to me. they said, look, if you come to our country and you want to discuss disability policy from the standpoint of your laws, the americans with disabilities act, then we are a part of the crpd. we're talking two different languages. but if you are a part of the convention on the rights of people with disabilities, we speak the same language. then we can start talking about how we work together to enhance the rights and opportunities of

people with disabilities. not just in china but in africa. earlier this year 21 countries met in malawi on this issue. on this issue. i was asked to come and speak. i couldn't because i was here in the senate. they desperately want the americans -- us -- to be a part of this, to lend our expertise, our leadership. not as a single country, but with other countries. to, again, advance the cause of the rights of people with disabilities in accommodations, accessibility. this spring i was in colombia, carta jena on a trip with other senators, congressmen. i remember our colleague, senator johnson, from south dakota, and his wife were there.

and i remember barbara -- mrs. johnson, barbara, saying "boy, i can't wait to get back to the united states because it's hard for tim using his wheelchair to get around anywhere." well, this is what i mean. we've got to start working with these other countries to help them change their systems, their accessibility. i talked to many veterans who would like to go and travel with their families or maybe even work overseas. can't do it. they're not accessible. i've talked to students who got a fulbright scholarship or one of those things to go to another country, but since they were disabled, they couldn't take advantage of it because there were not accessible places for them to live or to get around.

so if we are proud -- and we should be -- proud of the work that we have done as a nation bipartisanly -- there's never been a partisan hint to anything we've ever done on disability policy in this country. so if we're proud of what we have done in this country to enhance the well-being of people with disabilities, to make sure that they have a full and meaningful life, that they can contribute to the best of their ability, to get them out of institutions, living in the community, working in jobs, not subminimum wage dead-end jobs, but i mean real jobs, we've come a long way. we've come a long way. so if we're proud of it, why shouldn't we be proud enough to join with the rest of the world to say let's work together, let's work together to provide in other countries that same

kind of support and accessibility for people with disabilities. it's not going to happen overnight. i understand that. sometimes these things take a long time. this is -- this weekend will be the 24th anniversary of the signing of the americans with disabilities act. as i travel around, one thing that always catches my eye when i see new buildings, new housing and stuff, is it accessible. i just saw some this weekend, new housing, multifamily housing. not accessible. someone said to me, well, you know, maybe people with disabilities can't live here but there's plenty of other places. that's not the point. what if i want to live there and i want to invite my nephew who is a paraplegic, to come visit me and have dinner, he can't even get in the door. oh, well, that kind of puts a different color on it.

i can't even associate with people with disabilities because they can't even come over to my house. so while we've come a long way, we've got other things we've got to do. but we've got to, again, be a part of this global effort to advance the cause of people with disabilities. other countries are starting to catch on. they are starting to do things, some countries more than others. this treaty and our joining it means that we join with them in common effort, in common effort to make sure that people with disabilities are not shunted aside any longer. i think it is beneath us as senators, beneath us as a nation to somehow not accede to this treaty because of phony issues

like sovereignty, like sovereignty. we can take care of that, as we have in other treaties, or home schooling or abortion. we can take care of that. we can say that our laws are supreme. and in someone says well, you need to make changes in the future, so what. it doesn't make any difference that they change. it doesn't affect our sovereignty whatsoever. so i think it's beneath us if we don't adopt this treaty, if we don't become a part of this global effort. ronald reagan used to always say, you know, refer to america as a shining city on a hill. well, i think it is. and nowhere is america more of a shining city on a hill than how we treat our citizens with disabilities. we have the gold standard.

now it's time to empower us to work throughout the world to assist countries as they implement the treaty founded on the rights and principles embedded in the americans with disabilities act. so it's time for us to reassert our global leadership in disability policy. so let's rise above partisanship. let's rise above some unknown fear that something might happen in the future. let's rise above those narrow interests that say well, we'll lose our sovereignty or something like that or all these other phony issues that are coming up because they want to undermine the treaty. we can rise above that, just as we have done many times in the past. just as we did in 1999 when we became a part of a convention on the worst forms of child labor.

and we put in reservations and we put in understandings and declarations in that convention, by the way, so we spelled out how we were adopting that to our own nation. we do the same thing with this one here, too. now, i have been told -- i don't know if this is true or not. i have been told that some say well, it doesn't make any difference what kind of laws we put in there. there are some people that won't vote for it, period. are those the same people that would not vote for the americans with disability act if we put it on the floor today? would they say no, we shouldn't change our policies, that people with disabilities ought to be institutionalized, that they don't deserve to work in the workplace, they don't deserve to travel on buses that are accessible or trains that are accessible or subways that are accessible, that we don't need curb cuts, widened doors?

no, we don't need to do any of that stuff. would that be what they would say today if the americans with disabilities act were on the floor? well, anyone, any senator who says i like the americans with disabilities act, i think it's done a good thing for our country, anyone who says that ought to be voting for this treaty. because that's what we intend, that's what it means, that's what we would do -- reject that kind of fear and be a part of this global effort. so, madam president, again i commend senator menendez for his great leadership on this issue. i'm hopeful that before we leave here next week that we might reach an agreement, a time agreement with the other side to have a meaningful debate, except -- and have amendments. there is nothing wrong with having some amendments on this so people have amendments that are germane to the treaty. debate those in a timely fashion and then have a vote on it.

we need to do this. we need to do this. to reassert america's leadership worldwide on disability policy. so, madam president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, before i speak on a different topic, let me acknowledge my colleague and friend from iowa. i thank him for a lifetime of service in the house of representatives and the senate. he has announced his retirement at the end of this year. that is a loss for our great institution and for our country. tom harkin, as much -- more than any other senator today, as much as any other senator, has been a clarion voice for the disabled, across generations and across country borders for decades. he has changed america and he

has changed the world. there aren't many people who served in this chamber who can say that. but when he joined with bob dole , a republican world war ii disabled veteran from kansas, when this democratic senator from iowa, a navy veteran himself, joined with bob dole and passed the americans with disabilities act, it held america to a higher standard, it guaranteed that our values that we express so often will be values that we live by, and now he's calling on us to join a family of nations who have admired our leadership on disability rights and wonder why we haven't approved this basic treaty or convention on disabilities. i was honored today, senator harkin, to vote for that in the foreign relations committee again, and we had bipartisan support. we're going to continue to strive for it. and i thank you for your unmatched contribution when it

comes to speaking out for the disabled across america and around the world. madam president, dickens wrote "a tale of two cities." i come to the senate floor this evening to tell a tale of two illinois corporations. one of them is a corporation which i visited recently called wheatland tube in chicago. it's a division of j.m.c. steel. it employs about 2,000 people nationwide, 600 in chicago, which i represent. j.m.c. steel is a good company. it's more than good. it's a great company. the average starting wage at wheatland is $15 an hour. and the company offers generous health care benefits with low deductibles. it offers various retirement benefits, newer employees get a 401-k with a company match up to

6%. i tell this story because i want to salute a company which takes its mission seriously and treats its employees fairly. i believe a company like j.m.c. steel and wheatland should be encouraged and rewarded when it comes to our tax code and our laws. we're hearing a lot from our supreme court across the street. they have come up with a new theory about businesses and corporations in america. time and again, they have told us that they now view corporations to be virtual flesh and blood citizens entitled to constitutional rights. they decided that corporations had free speech under the bill of rights and that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money in an earth -- effort to

elect or defeat candidates. they even went so far as to say closely held corporations had religious freedoms that needed protection, to the point where the owner of a closely held for-profit corporation could determine the contraception and birth control programs available to the employees of that company under their health insurance plans. so we're told over and over again by the supreme court that we should view corporations in a human context. well, i'm going to stick with that chain of thought for a moment here and talk about another company much different than wheatland tube that i have just described to you. it's a company known as abve. that's the new name. it used to be known as abbott labs. it's roughly the eighth largest

pharmaceutical company in america. it's headquartered in illinois in the city of north chicago. abve recently made the news because its board of directors sat down and made a decision about the future of this company. first let me tell you a little bit about abve as a pharmaceutical company. abve is a company which, like virtually every other pharmaceutical company, relies on -- a great deal on our federal government. the national institutes of health, the leading biomedical research institute in the world does basic research that our pharmaceutical companies use to develop new drugs and products, and we pray that they will. when they find these drugs and products, pharmaceutical companies like abve go to the patent office run by our federal government to protect their property rights in their discoveries and their drugs. and when they turn around to sell these drugs in america

after approval by a federal agency, the food and drug administration, they by and large sell them to programs like medicare and medicaid, government-supported insurance programs. the reason i tell this background is that abve recently made a decision that they were going to renounce their american corporate citizenship, and in fact, at least on paper, move their corporate headquarters to an island off ireland. why would a great american corporation, the eighth largest pharmaceutical company, want to pick up and move to an island off ireland? to avoid paying united states taxes. to avoid paying united states taxes, abve is engaging in something known as inversion.

in other words, relocating their corporate headquarter offices and declaring themselves to no longer be an american corporation. doesn't it strike you as strange that a company that makes billions of dollars in profit based on america and the strength of our own system of government now is deserting america? this inversion is not unique to abbvie. we estimate 50 or 60 corporations are doing the same. i think that it's time for us, as members of congress, to put an end to this. these companies that are deserting america and heading overseas to avoid paying u.s. taxes have got to be stopped. alan sloan, whom i have heard a lot on radio and other places, is a writer for "fortune"

magazine. on july 7, he published an article in "fortune" magazine entitled" positively un-american tax dodges." madam president, i ask consent this article be entered in the "congressional record" after my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: let me quote one paragraph from alan sloan about these positively un-american tax dodges such as the inversion planned by abbvie of chicago, north chicago. here's what sloan writes -- "inverters don't hesitate to take advantage of the great things that make america america. our deep financial markets, our democracy and rule of law, our military might, our intellectual and physical infrastructure, our national research programs, all the terrific places our countries offer for employees and their families to live, but inverters do hesitate totally when it's time to ante up their

fair share of financial support for our system." exhibit a -- abbvie. a company that has been profitable and made billions of dollars in america now wants to lessen its american tax bill by moving overseas on paper. madam president, i think this has to come to an end, and i think that when we sit down and make decisions about a tax code and tax policy, we need to be rewarding companies like wheatland. wheatland tube with 600 employees in chicago is an american corporation and proud of it. they're not planning on moving overseas, and they're not trying to cut corners when it comes to their employees. they are treating them fairly, and they are getting a good work product for it.

what i have proposed is called a patriot employer's tax. if you have a corporation that's, in my view, patriotic with its headquarters in america, that hasn't moved employees overseas, that pays its employees at least $15 an hour -- why did i pick $15? because at $15 an hour, most american workers would not qualify for government benefits. perhaps the w.i.c. program is one exception, but the only one i could think of, but these are employees that are paid enough in the workplace that they don't qualify for food stamps to supplement their income. so we chose $15 an hour. and we said if the company goes on to provide good health insurance, a good retirement plan where the employer contributes at least 5% of an employee's income toward retirement, and the company will give a preference to hiring veterans, i think that company

is entitled to a patriot employer tax credit. wheatland isn't the only company in illinois that would qualify nor the only company in this country. so should we be bending our tax code so abbvie and the other corporate deserters get a break by moving overseas? or should we be changing our tax code to encourage good companies like wheatland to stay in america and pay a fair wage, to make a good product and make us proud? seems like a pretty simple choice as far as i'm concerned. we're going to start debating that on the the floor of the senate this week. we're dough going to try to. there's going to be a bill before us, offered by john walsh of montana, senator debbie stabenow of michigan called the bring jobs home act. it's a variation on the theme that i just spoke of. but the bottom line is the same.

to create tax code incentives for companies to bring jobs back into the united states. i can't think of a higher priority than to create and keep good-paying jobs in america. we're going to vote on moving forward on this bill, creating an incentive to bring jobs home. here's what it would do. if a company moves a production line, trade or business located outside the united states back into the united states, it's eligible for a tax credit under the walsh-stabenow bill. a credit for the cost of moving the jobs back home. to pay for it, companies that ship jobs overseas, jobs going in the wrong direction, will no longer be allowed to deduct the cost associated with outsourcing u.s. jobs from their tax bill. why would we want to incentivize a company to ship american jobs overseas? why would we want to create a deduction to make it easier and cheaper to do that?

it defies common sense. the walsh-stabenow bill reverses it and says we'll no longer incentivize shipping jobs overseas, we're going to incentivize shipping jobs home from overseas. pretty simple. i'd like to take that basic question to any town meeting in any town in my state and ask the folks siting there whether they think that makes sense. i'm pretty confident they're going to agree that it does. this is a commonsense approach to reward companies that are doing the right thing and eliminate tax breaks for companies that are doing the wrong thing. the patriot employer tax credit i hope i can offer as an amendment to this. i want to give a break to those companies that pay a good wage, keep their jobs in the united states, don't ship their headquarters overseas. i think they deserve an incentive to stay. i guess i'm old fashioned, but a lot of americans are old

fashioned the same way. i like walking into a store and seeing products that say made in the u.s.a. sure, i buy things made overseas. it's hard to avoid them. and i don't consciously avoid them but given the choice, i would love to see the made in the u.s.a. label on these products so i've got a choice to make this country stronger. that's what the walsh-stabenow bill does. that's what the patriot employer act does. and that's what we need to do when it comes to these inversions. now, there was an article that was printed in the fortune magazines after alan sloan's article on july 15 the only week. it quoted a man who i've come to know, he once worked in chicago, his name is jamie dimed. and jamie diamond is the c.e.o. of j.p. morgan chase. it turns out j.p. morgan chase

is the investment advisor to abbvie, the company i mentioned earlier. they've been advising them about moving overseas to avoid tax liability. mr. diamond in this fortune magazines piece said it was inappropriate for anyone to moralize against deals in which u.s. companies seek lower tax rates through mergers. and then he went on to say and inversion. and he characterized moving your corporate headquarters overseas to avoid taxes as basically -- let me make sure i get this right. he said "it is acknowledgment how bad our tax code is today, it is a way of protesting what the tax code is doing to corporations." our tax code today has resulted in the highest corporate profits in history. our tax code today has resulted

in paychecks for mr. diamond and other c.e.o.'s unparalleled in the history of the world. and for mr. diamond and the corporate developments argue about this unfair tax code as a reason or rationale for picking up and deserting america doesn't square with the reality of corporate compensation. nor corporate profits. some people critical of what i've spoken to today will say, well, don't go picking winners and losers in the tax code. i've got news for you. the tax code is all about picking winners and losers. and sadly, the losers too many times are working families in this country and the winners are the people in higher income categories and the largest corporations. look at what the tax code incentivizes. it incentivizes drilling for oil.

building wind turbines, it incentivizes holding stock for a longer period rather than a shorter period. it incentivizes saving for your retirement. it incentivizes buying health insurance. the tax code is full of incentives. so let's rewrite that tax code. let's create an incentive to keep jobs in america. let's create an incentive to make sure that companies that pay a fair wage and make sure their operations are good for working people get a tax break. and let's disincentivize the effort to move american jobs overseas and to move american corporate offices overseas. that to me is a tax code with the right incentives for building not only a strong american economy with good-paying jobs right here at home but building our middle class and our working americans into a strong entity, a strong

force for progress and economic growth. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: thanks very much. i was listening to my colleague from illinois talking about the need for us to have economic patriotism and to keep people from moving jobs offshore. i couldn't agree more. but the way to do it is to fix a broken tax code and it's frustrating to me that we have the president of the united states, we have members of congress on both sides of the aisle who have talked and talked and talked about the fact that we need to lower our tax rate and come up with a more competitive international tax system and we do nothing about it instead we're going for these one-off political debates that we're going to have on the floor this week apparently that, unfortunately, aren't going to make any difference to the workers in america who are seeing this erosion of their wages, their benefits, and often of their jobs because washington is abdicating its responsibility. washington is not doing what it

has to do in order to meet the fiduciary responsibilities, talk a lot about that with these corporations and our responsibility is to the people to have the right tax system stem in place so people can succeed so if they work hard, play by the rules, that the tax code is actually going to reward them. and that american companies can be competitive and that's simply not what's happening now. we need to do a lot of other things, too, like be sure we have a regulatory system that works and be sure we have an international trading system that works for the workers of america and what we do with our debt and deficit and other issues. but a because taxes is on the floor this week, i thought it would be helpful to talk generally about where we are. we had a hearing today, we had experts in from kind of across the spectrum and although they disagreed on some of the specifics about what we ought to do today, they all agreed with one thing. which is that our tax code is broken. it's not working.

and, by the way, the congressional budget office which is the nonpartisan group that advises us on the economic impact of things has looked at the tax code and said if you did deal with our high tax rates in this country and improve the corporate code, who benefits? it's the workers. and it's in terms of higher wages, better benefits, a job, this united states congress has let the american people down and it's time for us to deal with this issue and to deal with it in a way that can be nonpartisan. i mean we have, again, both sides of the aisle agreeing this thing is broken yet we can't seem to find that common ground to fix it. i would suggest there is common ground out there if we just get off the politics and start working on how do we actually help people to be able to get ahead. the issue that's come to all of our attention here in the congress in the last few months the most is companies that are

what they call inverting and these inversions are when a company in the united states buys a company overseas, merges with it and becomes an overseas company. and often these companies that they're buying are smaller than the u.s. companies. and they become a foreign company because they're trying to get as far away from our tax code as they can. and they want to become domiciled -- have their headquarters be in a foreign country because that country has a better tax code for a corporation to be able to succeed. and, you know, again there's again discussion about fiduciary responsibility. people do if you're in corporate america have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. and so they're making these decisions. and washington sits by the sidelines and lets it happen. and i think the answer is to reform the code. i think we know what we have to do, have to get busy on it. last week we saw a chicago drug company called abbvie, and

their bid to acquire a company called shier and their combineed company will move to the u.k., to england. this is hardly the first company to do this and won't be the last unless we change the code. in fact, according to the congressional budget office, 35 companies have inverted in the last five years alone. look, i think the united states is still the best place to do business, despite our bad tax code. we've got the most productive workforce. we've got the best infrastructure. we've got the rule of law. we've got some great research institutions. we've go to a lot going for us. and we can compete in attracting business from around the world. so why are these companies going to england? why are they going to the u.k.? well, it turns out they have a tax code that was designed for this century, this decade, unlike here in america where our

international tax code was actually developed back in the 1960's. things were a lot different then. our tax code itself and the rates of taxation were established in 1986. that was 25 years ago. so the international system back to the 1960's, the rate we pay back to 1986. 1986, "top gun" was at the box office, the mets were world series champions, pete rose was playing for the cincinnati reds. that's how long it was. and a lot has changed since then. the world has changed. the global economy is far more competitive and it is very difficult for us in the united states of america to have a policy that's not affected by that global economy. and yet while every other one of our global competitors have reformed our tax code, we have not. they all have. by the way, after the reform, the united kingdom has a 21%

corporate tax rate and they have a so-called territorial tax system. that means that it taxes income in the u.k. if it is made in the u.k., but otherwise it is taxed in the country where it is done. that means they have a more competitive global tax system. about 93% of the companies that american companies compete with have a more competitive national system. we also have a higher rate. we have a deadly combination. a high rate, 39% tax rate, the highest among all the developed countries in the world, not a number one you want to be. but we've got this international system that's not competitive. so it is not a mystery why companies are leaving. when you look at the side-by-side, they are a making a decision based on what's best for th--what's best for their shareholders. you can see by doing nothing, the u.s. is falling further

behind. here is an interesting chart. this shows just in 2004 what the tax rates were and now what they are in 201467814. the u.s. is the same. that 39% includes the federal rate plus the state rates. people say, well, the effective rate is less than that. yes, it is less than that because people do take advantage of some of the so-called tax preferences, but even so our rate shire than these other countries. because we go from 39% to 39%. the u.k., 30% to 21%. canada, 34.4% to 26%. netherlands, 34.5% to 25%. ireland, 12.5%, switzerland, 24 h.r. to 21%. look, they've gone to these territorial tax systems. what's happened? these are the that have left the united states to go to these companies. bheengsed abbvie, medtronic, but on and on. there are some companies in here

from the state of ohio. there is a company listed there from my home state of ohio that chose to go incorporate somewhere else because of the tax code, and guess what? they're going to save about $160 million on their tax bill this year. that's a pretty darn good savings, and that's wrong. we've got to reform this tax code. in 1960, 17 of the world's largest 20 companies were in the u.s. u.s.-headquartered. by 2006, only six were headquartered in the united states. in 2012 alone, our global 500 companies, the bigger companies, our share fell from 36% to 26%. i'm not saying it is all due to taxes, but a lot of it is. if you talk to these company, you find that o out. anything anyone disputes in the united states senate or in the white house, for that market that tax reform is needed. i don't think so. and yet we aren't seeing it. instead we're hearing about these small things that seem politically popular but aren't going to make any difference in

terms of truly bringing the jobs back and attracting more jobs. it is an admission that the united states is no longer the best place in the world to invest, if you say you're going to require companies to do certain things so that they can't follow the tax code. it is a futile effort to try to keep companies here with these new requirements because ultimately if you do that and knacyou make it even more disadvantagadvantageous, what wy do? well, they'll probably sell. because foreign companies can come in and buy them. that's happening and has happened. and if you're a beer drinker, like i am, try to find an american beer these days. i mean be, the largest share is probably sam adams with about 1 .4% market share. the rest are all foreign-owned.

yingling is up there, too. companies have come in here, foreign companies, becaus and bt them because they are tax code in those countries is more advantageous. who does that hurt? it hurts american workers. i'm not saying they don't have facilities here. they dovment bu do. but when you move the corporate headquarters out of the united states, the tax headquarters out of the united states, the history is that jobs follow, including the higher-paid executive jobs but also an intangible but really important thing to american communities is when you have a company there and it is headquartered there and it is u.s.a. company, they intend ttend to invest in the c. think of the charities you're on. probably there is some company that helps out there. probably it is an american company. so of course we've got to keep up with the times. we aren't doing that. if we don't do that we're going to see more and more companies leave our shores.

i don't think these companies want to leave our shores sms i think they're doing it because washington is letting them down. let's that imagine that the company did decide not do one these inversions because we did some one-off things including you ought to stay here. you ought to not take advantage of dot i think what's going to happen is you're going to sigh more and more companies become foreign companies. american workers and american scwobs are going to be lost because you're going to see foreign companies come in and buy these u.s. companies. if we're truly patriots, we need real tax reform and we need it as soon as possible. this can't, by the way, be just a republican or democrat priority. it needs to be an american priority and it should be because there does seem to be, as far as i can tell in talking to people, a consensus. the code is broken. we have a pretty good sense of what we have to do to try to fix it. wurntion i think we have a

pretty good sense that we ought to reduce the raivment so the corporate rate ought to be reduced. i think it's got to get down at least 25% for us to be competitive. back in the 1980's when we last did this, 1986, we purposely lowered the rate under ronald reagan to get it town do 34% so it would be below the average of the other developed countries of the world. that's what we ought to do again. so at least 25%. second, we got do this, by the way, at the same time we eliminate some of these preferences, the deduction, the credits, the exclusions, and i know that's tough, and some people are going to say, gosh, i'm going to lose my special preference or, you know, this is going to hurt my company. if they get a lower rate, one, they get a benefit, but, second, it helps the economy to get a lower rate. economists all agree. this will generate economic growth and will result, by the way in more revenues coming in through growth as well. so you broaden the base by getting rid of a lot of the preferences, take those savings to lower the rate, and then

finally you've got to do something about this international side. if you don't, we're not going to be able to be competitive. even if you have a low tax rate, if you don't figure out a way to ensure we go to a system that's more like these other countries have all gone to -- 95% o 95 --f the companies have a territorial system where you tax income where it is earned. if we don't do that then we're going to it make this problem worse, not better, by some of these proposals that say, let's just kick the can down the road and immediately do something to create a requirement on companies to do this or that t with regard to the anti- inversion rules, let's not reform the tax code, let's just do something on inversions to make it harder to invert, we did do that back in 2004. we enacted anti- inversion rules that were supposed to stop companies from moving overseas. as you saw in the first chart, that didn't work. companies did anyway. i don't think it's going to work today. i think it could make the

problem worse because that's companies could be targeted for foreign acquisitions. if businesses are more valuable overseas than in the united states and businesses can't move out of the u.s. themselves, i think a foreign corporation is going to step in and buy theme. bringing the jobs home act is a great title. that's legislation we're going to consider here on the floor tomorrow. i think we ought to have a debate on it, so i'm going to vote to have that debate. it is a great title, but i don't think there's anything in the legislation that's going to help to bring jobs back. i don't think anything in this legislation will address the fact that we have this high tax rate. i don't think anything in this legislation is going to address the fact that we have a worldwide system that's out of step with our competitors. it claims to real estate move deductions and tax credits that incentivize companies to move overseas. unfortunately, that's not as easy as it stands because according to the joint committee on tanches which is the group that advises us, under present

larks "there are no targeted tax credits or dis-allowance of deductions related to relocating business units inside or outside of the united states." there aren't any. so, you know, that's sort of tough to say that we're going to do something with regard to credits or dis-allowances of deductions when there are flon none that relate directly to that. there have been claims to the contrary that the media when you look at it say that's false, misleading. when it comes to proposed deductions for bringing jobs back to our shores, the proposal would likely pose some really serious administrative difficulties for an internal revenue service that's already got plenty of problems. the legislation, as i read it, gives the i.r.s. the authority to subjectively judge whether the i.r.s. thinks that business deductions were made specifically for the purpose of bringing jobs to the united states or moving jobs overseas because there are no specific tax deductions for this the i.r.s. would have to somehow

subjectively determine whether that was true or not. that's going to be tough because multinational businesses create and close businesses around the job every day. most times because it is the most economically efficient thing to do from a business perspective. so they start a company, close a company, move them around. asking the i.r.s. to determine whether those diggs decisions were made to move jobs to the u.s. or overseas i think is going to be impossible. that's why this legislation is not going an anywhere. i do appreciate my colleagues' hard work in rig to come up with real legislation that will address the problem and senator wyden, the chair of the financial committee, has been working on that, as have others. but this particular one is just not going to help. it is just not going to to help. and that fact should serve us a a stark reminder that the only way we're going to stop these so-called inversions, the only way we're going to stop people from say, i'd rather being a foreign company than u.s.a. company, is to make it more attractive to be here, to do

what we should have done over the last couple decades, and the rest of the world has. all of our competitors have, which is to reform our tax code so that it is good for american workers and good for american investment. and if we do that i think america's best days are ahead of us. i really do. there are lots of things we need do to make this country more competitive, to be sure weir we are creating the best jobs and have the greatest opportunity here for everybody. but one thing we can do that will give the economy a shot in the arm rightway is this comprehensive tax reform. when people have analyzed this from a macroeconomic basis, they say, if did you this, lower the rate by broadening the rate go to this competitive international system, you would generate a lot of more investment and business in this america. that would in turn generate more ref niewvment it is growth revenues. which is exactly what we want to see. we want to see more jobs and see us being able to have the kind of growth and process snairt we can help to get out of this debt

and deficit, which is a real problem and going forward it is a problem we're going to have to deal with because it affects the economy bawnsdz it equit and bez we're doing to future general rations. as legislators it is our job to fix this problem. that's what we were hired to do. i know it is not easy. i know corporate tax reform is a tough thing to do because you're taking away benefits from one company or another by lowering that rate. and by the way, when you do this, when you do lower that rate, you get rid of some of these preferences to do so, ghast? everybody has to pay taxes. so people talk about, is it unfair some american companies under some years don't pay taxes? well, if they can't be as creative because there aren't all these deductions and credits and exemptions to be able to use, they're going to have to pay taxes. everyone will pay. there will be a lower rate. they'll be more competitive and won't be having this incentive to move i don't remember of yo shore, but everyone will pay taxes. i think that's what we ought to be doing.

to be able to compete and to succeed and to help american workers, it is time for us to make tax reform a reality. let's not do things that might feel good politically and do some of these half-steps that in the end would inadder have at any timely make it worse, not better, because again if you make it even more difficult to be an american company, you're just not going to have as many american companies because they'll be bought by foreign companies that can pay more for them. let's get busy doing the things we were elected to do. wok across the aisle to come up with sensible tax reform, lowering the rate, competitive international system, ensuring that we do create more opportunities for american workers to be able to compete and not just survive but thrive in the global economy. thank you, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with and i be allowed to speak up to 10 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i rise today to talk about the deteriorating situation in syria and iraq. however, before i address the situation in the middle east, i'd like to talk briefly about russia and the downing of the malaysian airline flight 17. last week we watched in horror as news came of the almost 300 civilians who were callously murdered. i've seen the intelligence on this attack and it is very clear that russia bears the responsibility for the death of these civilians. vladimir putin should be held accountable regardless of whether it was a russian soldier or a run-sponsored separatist that pulled the trigger. russia either shot down the plane itself or directly gave separatists the order and the

ability to do so. russia and its proxy separatists in eastern ukraine are well armed as was clearly demonstrated last week, and they are also very irresponsible. president putin continues to flout the international community by sending heavy weapons and fighters into eastern ukraine. in addition, russia is supporting bashar assad's regime in syria and failing to comply with some of its international arms control obligations. the limited sanctions put in place so far have done little to deter putin. in addition to simply increasing sanctions, president obama must show strength and leadership and rally the international community to secure the crash site, conduct a thorough investigation, and hold the russians and particularly putin accountable for this unthinkable attack. now is not the time for half measures. swift and decisive action is needed to deal with this

situation. with regard to the middle east, the rise of the al-nusra front and the islamic state of iraq and the levant presents a threat to the security of the region, to the united states of america and to our allies. yet despite repeated requests from me and other members of this body on both sides of the aisle, the administration has yet to present a compelling plan to counter this growing threat. the administration seems determined to keep its head in the sand but this threatfully simply cannot be ignored. this same wait and see mentality is more of what got us into this mess with syria in the first place. isil is capturing arms and equipment and closing in on baghdad. isil -- isil has garnered thousands of fighters and countless webs. we have seen isil parade around

with more u.s.-made howitzers and even m-raps in the absence of resistance from u.s. or other forces isil is able to redistribute its captured material and recruit additional fighters. as isil has taken territory it has ransacked several prisons, providing it with an even large er fighting force. all of this in preparation for an assault on baghdad. isil is clearly preparing to attack baghdad, which will inevitably include terrorist attacks against western interests and possibly including the international airport and the u.s. embassy. isil fighters have plotted and conducted terrorist attacks terrorist attacks in baghdad over the past decade and it is naive to think they will not continue. we can wait for isil to descend on isil with its newly acquired

weaponry or we can take the fight to them before they reach the capital. isil has its sights set on jordan, israel and other parts of the region. on june 25 of this year we saw on isil suicide bomber detonate himself in a beirut hotel after being discovered by security forces. this is not the only attack we have seen outside of iraq and syria. lebanon in recent months has been besieged by violence linked to the conflict in iraq and syria and it is only a matter of time before these attacks spread to jordan as well as to israel. isil not only represents a credible threat to the region but to europe and the united states as well. earlier this year we witnessed an armed attack on a jewish muslim in brussels. the attacker, the a 29-year-old french national, had returned

from fighting in syria and was arrested with an isil flag wrapped around his rifle. alarmingly, the cell's leaped had been arrested in afghanistan in 2001 and was also a former guantanamo bay detainee. individuals linked to isil have been arrested in other parts of europe including germany and france. isil's aspirations don't end in europe but extend to the united states. the group's leader, abu-bakar albadadi has been clear about the goal of confronting the united states and as a country we must be prepared for this threat. many of isil's leaders have threatened the united states for years under the banner of al qaeda in iraq. these fighters have been planning attacks against baghdad and are responsible for the deaths of many u.s. service members over the last decade. one of the biggest lessons we

learned from the september 11 attacks was that we cannot give terrorist attacks a sanctuary from which to plan attacks against us. arguably, isil now has control of the largest territory ever held by a terrorist group. this safe haven provides isil with the time and space they need to train fighters and plan operations. it also has provided them with access to weapons and network that can be used to support external operations. we knew about the threat we faced from al qaeda prior to 9/11 but we failed to act. i just hope we don't make the same mistake again. isil isn't the only threat we face in iraq and syria. experienced fighters and jihadists have flocked to syria forming several groups that could threaten the united states including the al qaeda affiliated al-nusra front. several u.s. citizens and legal

permanent residents have traveled to syria to join al-nusra front and other groups. in may, we witnessed home are a mohammed abu saleh, the first american suicide bomber in syria carry out an attack that has believed to have killed almost 40 syrian personnel. a florida navy, abu saleh was eulogized by a reare cutement video showing images of the attack on the world trade center and a burning american flag. the white house recently announced plans to increase support for the syrian opposition including a $500 million plan to train and equip vetted elements of the syrian opposition. despite the announcement, few details are available on how this training would actually take place and it may be quite some time before this program begins. it's also unclear how this new program to train syrian

opposition fighters will actually help counter the growing terrorist threat in syria as opposed to simply countering the assad regime. it is clear the administration has not prepared any plan that will fit into a cohesive and compelling foreign policy in the region. the middle east over the last three years has been besieged by a resurgence of instability, violence and terrorism. the administration, unfortunately, has done little to stop it. instead of focusing on countering rising groups in iraq and syria, the administration has been focused on ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan, which appears to have had the unfortunate consequence of letting america's enemies grow stronger. al qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist groups are determined to attack the united states. we constantly face new plots and operatives looking for ways to murder americans.

like the aqa plot to put another i.e.d. other than u.s.-bound commercial aircraft. thankfully this plot and others have not materialized but we are not always going to be so fortunate. just this month t.s.a. was forced to institute new stewart measures to mitigate the terrorist threat to commercial aviation. the administration must come to groups with the terrorist threats we face and put policies in place that will effectively counter them. i would encourage the administration to act immediately before another act of terrorism against our country occurs. madam president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that not standing l rule 22 following the vote on the motion on the vote to proceed on wednesday, july 23, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 80 2, 786 and 599, there be two minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote, that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations in order listed, that any roll call votes following the first in the series be ten minutes in length, if any nomination is confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action

or debate, no further motion be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. further, that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to s. 2569, all time consumed while in executive session under the terms of this agreement county postcloture. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: we expect the nomination considered in this agreement to be considered by voice. i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 929. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, pamela harris of maryland to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit.

mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of pamela harris of maryland to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit, signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i understand that h.r. 4719 is at the desk and due for a first reading.

the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 4719, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. mr. reid: i would ask for a second reading but object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president, i ask consent the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, we've waited here now for hours trying to work out an agreement to move forward on the highway bill. but one of the senators is not to be found, so i'm not going to wait any longer. i've waited quite a few hours and all the staff here, it is unfair to everybody. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, july 23. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, following leader remarks the senate resume consideration on the motion to proceed to calendar number 453 until 11:00 a.m. finally that at 11:00 a.m. the senate proceed to vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 2569. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, madam president, at 11:00 a.m. there will be a roll call vote on the motion to

invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bring jobs home act followed by three voice votes on confirmation of clark, shapiro and creed nominations. if there is no further business if there is no further business

saying about, and it seems like conservatives are evenly balancing this with what you acknowledge it could be a bit messier? >> luddite belief and what the administration believes is the legal basis for our case is strong and we have an effective advocate at the department of justice and we will be making that case before the dc circuit. the intent of the congress was to ensure every eligible american would have the access to tax credit that would love for the cost. >> they are also sending important positions one by justice scalia and one written by justice kagan but don't turn

out as they were expected. given that out there as well wonder you so confident you're legal basis is sound? >> be other legal expert i would cite as the district judge in this case who would anticipate the government would implement the wall with the congress intend. this judge in this case who was at the district level admittedly did say there is simply no evidence of the statute itself or the legislative history of any intend to support the claims made by the plaintiff. so i guess to put it more simply, the view agreed by the judge the way that we have implemented the act to maximize benefits for people across the country, and millions of americans are benefiting from this right now but that is in line with the easily understood intent of the united states

congress. >> washington journal starts with your reaction to the court rulings on healt healthcare law. homeland security secretary johnson said today that he is calling on the congress to pass president obama's request for $3.7 billion of emergency spending for border security. unless congress approves more funding he said u.s. customs and border protection will run out of money by september. good afternoon everybody and

thank you for being here. in the face of the current rise and eat legal migration into the rio grande valley sector we have said repeatedly that our borders are not open to a legal eye creation, and that if you come here from central america from guatemala, honduras, el salvador, we will send you back in response to the recent situation. with regards to adults who come here without their children as a part of the recent rise in the migration, we have dramatically turned the time around that it takes. takes. we dramaticallwe've dramaticalle time that it takes to repatriate and remove these adults from an average type of something like 33 days down to four days in a removal process. we are spending between six to ten flights a week into each of these central american countries

to send the adults back who are coming to the rio grande valley sector with regards to adults who bring their children here, we have established that detention capacity, and in new mexico where i was a week before last for the press conference we are building additional detention capacities for adults who bring their kids here up to something like 6,000 beds. last week we began to repatriate adults with children back to central america in the flights along with the adults with regards to the unaccompanied children who are coming here as a part of this migration we have highlighted repeatedly the dangers of the long journey into the dangers of traveling with a criminal smuggling organization. we have repeatedly stressed the misinformation that the criminal smuggling organizations are

putting out. we have stressed that there are no free passes and once an illegal migrants get to south texas and programs before to the action are those that came here seven years ago. we are reducing the time that it takes to repatriate unaccompanied children and we are adding resources to that process with discussions from the congress about the changes in the law. about the repatriation and about the efforts that they are making to reduce the migration into the united states. the three presidents of the countries will be here friday for meetings with president obama. i was in guatemala a week before last with the same purpose.

we are seeing the numbers of illegal migrants coming into the rio grande valley sector drop over the last four to six weeks we've seen the numbers of total life retention drop and the numbers of comprehension of unaccompanied children dropped over the last four to six weeks. we are not declaring victory. this could be seasonal, but the numbers are dropping. nevertheless, the recent rise in illegal migration requires a sustained aggressive campaign by the government in response we have the capital right now that requests supplemental funding to my department, the department of justice, the department of health and human services and the state department. i have stressed that the current rate given the capacity that we have had this urge to deal with this issue.

we run out of money in mid-august the customs and border protection run out in mid-september, and doing nothing in the congress is not an option. today, i want to highlight what the deputy attorney general here and with the acting director of immigration and customs enforcement and with peter edge, the executive associate director of homeland security investigations, such as a part of the ic. the work we are doing to focus on law enforcement against the criminal investigations that are bringing children and others into the rio grande valley sector's to whom these families are paying as much as $10,000. over the last month i've directed that an additional 60 criminal investigators and

intelligence analysts and other personnel go to south texas to focus on this effort. since that time they have made something like 192 criminal arrests in smuggling related cases and seized 28 vehicles. we are interacting the money flow, the flow of money that goes to the criminals smuggling organizations over the last month or so, we have interdicted $625,000 in 288 bank account and we are continuing this effort and we are going to ramp up this effort and that's part of what we want to talk about today. we need to continue to sustain the campaign. and we will do so. we are focused on that. we will identify more bank accounts and more flows of money. and we will continue to go after the criminal smuggling organizations. we will continue to work with the mexican and central american governments on their law

enforcement efforts. so, with that i would like to turn it over to the deputy attorney general, my friend jim cole to talk further about the law-enforcement efforts that are part of this campaign. thank you. thank you secretary johnson and all of you for being here today. i'm pleased to join the secretary to discuss the efforts of the department of justice and homeland security to address the challenges created by the recent surge in undocumented immigrants crossing illegally into the united states. as the secretary has discussed and described the conditions of the migrants en route to the united states they are horrible. human smuggling ventures lead to extremely dangerous circumstances that pose a threat to public safety and create serious planetary and concerns. we have encountered smuggled aliens that have been kidnapped, taken hostage, beaten, sexually

assaulted, threatened with murder or have died as a result of the conditions en route. the department of justice has a long history of working with the department of homeland security to investigate and prosecute humans of smugglers. our u.s. attorney's office charged almost 3,000 attendants with a crime and bringing in and harboring criminal and a certain aliens. in the four fiscal years from 2009 to 2013, the u.s. attorney's office filed charges against over 15,000 individuals for these crimes. and as of june 30 of this year, the department filed alien smuggling charges against more than 2,000 defendants in federal district court in this fiscal year alone. the statistics are emblematic of the work of th but trouble pross and law-enforcement agents do that and force the nation's immigration law.

the department of justice continues to work collaboratively with the department of homeland security to facilitate investigations like the one secretary johnson described that may lead to the prosecution of those responsible for the illegal entry of individuals including minors into the united states. just two weeks ago i met with the attorneys that represent the southwest border districts to discuss additional ways to disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations that are facilitating the transportation of unaccompanied minors and others into the country. we are also working with our counterparts to encourage them to target facilitators operating in the country in particular as the secretary noted we are readable in efforts to work with the governor of mexico to identify him at weekend and prosecute smugglers who are eating the children crossing the u.s. border. but arresting and prosecuting without the will will not fault the problem. we also need to build the

capacity of our counterparts in what allah and el salvador to address the violence particularly game violence that encourages migration to the united states. the violence remains endemic event countries such as el salvador where they have been brokered between the gangs. this can be addressed only by a sustained commitment to the rule of law and law-enforcement reform by the country from which these miners are fleeing. ..

long-term resident advisers and country seeking to reform laws as well as investigate, prosecute, and he was corrections services. we are hopeful the congress will fully fund these capacity building programs in central america and as a result we will be able to bring about even more successes in the months to come. thank you very much we will take questions. right here. >> what happened saugh to the immigrants taken into custody. deal have a sense of where the smuggling organizations 78? get a base in central america, central american the pace in the u.s., folks in that transit countries and sell one? >> well, let me at least start

with your second question first. smuggling organizations are all up and down through central america and mexico and exist partly in the united states. most importantly the flow of money that they rely upon to fund their operations occurs within the united states, which is one of the things that we are focused on. the organizations are themselves multinational. and they exist in two, three, four countries at a time. your question regarding the 500 -- [inaudible question] >> well, it a migrant qualifies under laws for humanitarian aid water relief we will comply with the law, but the messages that if you come here illegally, unless you qualify for some form of humanitarian relief we will

send you back. we are surging resources to do that. yes, ma'am. right there. >> i want to ask you about the statistics in terms of smuggling and trafficking. how do you interpret a reentry after being deported counting as smuggling or trafficking case? also, in terms of this controversy over ice using commercial airliners to transport all undocumented immigrants, children were young adults, can you address that issue? >> well, with regard to the repatriation back to central america, we have been using it to the using charter flights. there are commercial flights that we use from time to time, i believe. when it comes to the repatriation to central america they are charter flights.

>> hi. cbs news. do you have any statistics on how many and the company children have actually been brought by human traffickers or smugglers? such a large number without parents. >> it is our observation that almost all of them are smuggled. no one is freelancing. they are identified, recruited. smuggling organizations mislead families into believing there are provisos that will expire at the end of the month unless they act now, and remarkably these groups charge an exorbitant amount of money, several thousand dollars, which for a lot of families, i have to believe, constitutes one year's wages and very often it is have now, have when you get to the

border or have when you get into the united states. one of the examples of how these criminals smuggling organizations operate was an arrest that we made just two weeks ago where the smuggling organization felt it was owed an additional $2,000 by the family and basically kept the migrants hostage until they were paid and threatened to either decapitate her were sell her to a brothel and tell the family paid $2,000 once she was here. i think that what is in northern virginia. that is what we are dealing with, how these criminal organizations operate, which is why we keep highlighting the dangers of putting your child in the hands of the criminal smuggling organization like this. right here. >> how, if at all, the customs

border enforcement agency and the border itself will cooperate with the national guard that are being sent by the texas governor to the border? are you going to cooperate in some way so that they are used in an effective manner? >> well, i would certainly hope so. the governor announced yesterday that he was sending 1,000 national guard to the border. we do not know yet exactly what they intend to do, what the intended use is. but whenever that is, i would hope that our customs and border personnel, immigration customs enforcement personnel would working effectively with him. [inaudible question] >> week, at this point -- well, certainly the government feels as though with is necessary. the governor and president had a conversation about this matter when president obama was in texas.

the governor asked about potential uses of the broader national guard and the president agreed to look at that. and so we are reviewing the options just because we have said we want to review all lawful and appropriate options to deal with this. next question. right here. [inaudible question] sorry. you said that nearly all unaccompanied minors are being smuggled north in exchange for payment. why would they then be treated under the traffic law which is designed for people who are forcefully moved and abandoned? and also, do you have any numbers on whether they slowed down family use border crossing at the last week? >> the answer to your second question is, yes, we have seen a slowdown in the rate of apprehension of unaccompanied

children, family units, as well as the and the company's adults. the t dpra, the 2008 law, the trafficking victims' protection. i'm sorry i don't have the acronym talks in terms of when a child is identified as an unaccompanied child and in this circumstance by customs and border patrol under our laws within 72 hours we are to transfer that child to the department of health and human services. that is basically how the law works. under the tvpra, the department of health and human services should act in the best interest of the child. as you probably know, we have asked the administration has asked for a change in law, and we are in active discussions with congress right now about doing that. >> thank you, mr. secretary. a couple of questions on the

funding. he said that ice would run out of august by september if you don't get the emergency funding by congress. reports on the hill today that republicans may announce their own plan to address this situation and that it could dramatically scale back the amount of money. the president has requested. now two and a half billion. rieti's level ever the reduction might be pre does your department need all the money the president has asked for and would that be critical to your operations? >> department of common security ask for one and a half billion dollars to focus just on immigration and customs enforcement. the request is for just over 1 billion. 879 million of that goes to building detention capability. another 100 million or so goes to supporting the law enforcement efforts in central america. so the funding we have requested is very targeted at detention, deterrence, and removal.

the other key to our funding request is to transfer authority based upon involving -- devolving circumstances. if some of the assumptions behind the numbers change we want the flexibility to transfer money within the department of homeland security your from the department of health and human services over to dhs. time for one more question, one more question. right here. >> to questions. number one, can you give us an idea of how many centers you have had to open in order to house the children? number two, i want to make sure i understood you. he said that you have reduced the turnaround time to repatriate adults and are looking to reduce the time that you processed the children. >> yes. to process children and to remove the children, send the kids back under our laws.

>> my second question is about process. that is, at what stage the the children get to lay out their case? in other words, when do they, you know, is it in the beginning? is it when they go before a judge, the second time they have to go before a judge, through an agent, where in the process? >> well, the way it generally works this, there is an opportunity early on in the process usually with a lawyer to assert a claim of asylum or credible fear, other form of humanitarian relief, and there are various different avenues for that under the lofts. that claim is then considered, and if it is denied then the process reverts to the normal removal process for

unaccompanied children. we believe that a majority of them will not qualify for any form of humanitarian relief. when you look at the statistics in the past most of them must be and will be removed. thank you very much, everybody. [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow morning washington journal starts off with your reaction to a couple of court rulings on health care law. we will take phone calls coming weeks, and facebook comments and talk about the decision in other news where two members of congress. in a conversation about the technology used to destroy its serious chemical weapons.

clive every morning starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on book tv. >> i thought it would be compelling to tell the story of a white family and a black family with the same name who come from the same place and follow them from slavery through the civil war, reconstruction, jim crow, the civil rights movement, up until today and compare and contrast. >> columnist and author chris tomlinson on his family's slave- owning history and how the legacy of slavery still affects american society. he talked with the brother of a former nfl running back about their family's lineage as former slaves. saturday night at 10:00 eastern on a c-span2. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and the public

policy evidence and every weekend book tv now for 16 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable-tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or a satellite -- satellite provider. >> president obama signed legislation today designed to streamline and improve federal job-training programs. after being introduced by vice president biden, the president spoke for about 15 minutes before signing the bill. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. everybody, please be seated. welcome to the white house, everybody. i want to thank joe for that generous introduction but more importantly everything he does stay in and day out on behalf of

american workers, and i want to thank the members of congress here from both parties who have led the effort to reauthorize the workforce innovation act. when president clinton signed the original workforce innovation act back in 1998 he said it was a big step forward in making sure that every adult can keep on working. and he was right. the law became a pillar of american job training programs. as of millions of americans aren't the skills they need to find a new job or get a better paying job. but even back then in 1998 our economy was changing. the notion that a high-school education could give you a good job and you could keep that job until retirement was not a reality for the majority of people. advances in technology made some jobs obsolete. global competition sent to other jobs overseas. and then as we were coming into office the great recession

pulled the rug out from under millions of hard-working families. now, the good news yesterday nearly six years after the financial crisis our business has added nearly 10 million new jobs. manufacturing is adding jobs with the first time since the 1990's. the unemployment rate is at its lowest point since september september 2008. the fastest 1-share drop in nearly 30 years. there are now more job openings that at any time since 2007, pre-recession. for the first time in a decade, as john mentioned, business leaders around the world have declared that the number one place to do business, the number one place to invest is not china but the united states of america. so thanks to the hard work of the american people and some decent politics, our economy has recovered faster and gone farther than most other advanced nations.

as joe said, we are well-positioned. we have got the best cards. so we have the opportunity well -- right now to extend the lead we already have, encourage more companies to join the trend in bringing jobs home and make sure they gains are not just for folks at the very top but that the economy works for every single american. if you are working hard you should be able to get a job. that job should pay well, and you should be able to move forward, look after your family. opportunity for all. and that means that even as we are creating new jobs in this new economy we have to make sure every american has the skills to fill those jobs. and keep in mind, not every job is a good job and needs a 4-year degree. but the ones that don't need a college degree generally need some sort of specialized training.

last month i met a construction worker. he had to figure out how to scramble and get a new job. she chose to take of student loans, enrolled in the community college, trained for a new career. today not only hazard has been unable to get back into construction, but she loves her job as an accountant and has started a whole new career. the question is how we get more workers the chance to adapt, revamp, retool so that they can move forward in this new economy and in 2011i called on congress to reauthorize the workforce innovation act, updated for the 21st century, and i want to thank every single lawmaker who is here, lawmakers from both parties to enter that call. it to a compromise, but it turns

out compromises sometimes okay. folks in congress got past their differences and got a bill on my desk. this is not a win for democrats or republicans but american workers, a win for the middle class, and for everybody who is fighting to earn their way into the middle-class. so the bill i am about to sign will give communities more certainty to invest in job training programs for the long run, help us bring those programs into the 21st century by building what we know works based upon evidence, based upon tracking what actually delivers on behalf of folks who enroll in these programs. more partnerships with employers, more tools to measure performance, more flexibility for states and cities to innovate and to run their workforce programs in ways that are best suited for their particular demographic and their particular industries. and as we approach the 24th

anniversary of the ada this bill takes these steps to support americans with disabilities who want to live and work independently. so there is lot of good stuff in here. of course, as joe said, there is still more that we could do. that is why we rallied employers to give long-term unemployed a fair shot. it is why we are using $600 million in federal grants to encourage companies to offer printer ships and work directly with community colleges. it is why in my state of the union address this year i asked joe to lead an across-the-board review of america's training programs to make sure that they have one mission, train americans with the skills employers actually need, to match them to the jobs that need to be filled right now. so today i am directing my cabinets even as we sign the bill to implement some of the recommendations. first, we will use the funds and

programs we already have. federal agencies will award grants and move away from what our secretary of labor has been working very hard on what he calls a train and pray approach. folks who are unemployed know what that means they enrolled and get trained for something and not even sure whether the job is out there. if it is not come all they're doing is saddling themselves with debt, often times putting themselves in the worst position. what we want to do is make sure where you train your workers first based upon what employers are telling you they are hiring for. help business design that training programs so that we are creating a pipeline to jobs that are actually out there. number two, training programs that use federal money will be

required to make public how many of its graduates find jobs and how much they earn. that means workers, as they are shopping around for what is available, will know in advance if they can expect a good return on their investment. every job seekers should have all of the tools they need to take their career into their own hands. we will help make sure they can do that. finally, we will keep investing in new strategies and innovations to help keep pace with a rapidly changing economy from testing new, faster ways of teaching skills like coating and cyber security and welding, to giving at risk youth a chance to learn on the job. we will keep making sure that americans have the chance to build their careers throughout a lifetime of hard work. the bill i am signing today and the actions i am taking today will connect more ready to work americans with ready to be filled jobs. of course, there is some much

more that we can still do, and i am looking forward to engaging all of the members of congress and all of the businesses, not for profits to work on this issue. i am really interested in engaging them to see what else we can get going. i will give you a couple of examples. a high-school graduation rate is the highest on record. more young people learning college degrees and never before but we still have work to do to make college more affordable and lift the burden of student loan debt. i acted take gave nearly 5 million americans the opportunity to cap their student loan payments that 10 percent of their income, particularly important for those who are choosing careers that are not as lucrative. congress could help millions more, and i would like to work with him on that. minimum-wage, you know, this week marks five years since the last increase in minimum wage. more and more states and businesses are raising the minimum wage.

at the same for federal contractors and would like to work with congress to do the same for about 28 million americans, give americans a race right now. if their pay. let's make sure the next generation of women are getting a fair deal. let's make sure the next generation of good manufacturing jobs are made in america, make it easier, not harder for companies to bring those jobs back home. tomorrow senators would get to vote on the bring jobs home act. instead of rewarding companies shipping jobs overseas or rewarding companies moving profits offshore, let's create jobs right here in america and encourage those companies. so let's build on what both parties have already done on many of these issues, see if we can come together and while we are at it let's fix and immigration system that is currently broken in a way that strengthens our borders and that we know will be good for

business. we know it will increase our gdp. we know it will drive down our deficit. so i want to thank all the democrats and republicans here today for getting this done. it is a big piece of work. but i am also inviting you back. let's do this more often. it. [laughter] it is so much fun. [applause] let's pass more bills and create more good jobs. [applause] looked at everybody. everybody is smiling. everybody feels good. we could be doing this all the time. our work could make a real difference in the lives of real americans. that is why we're here. more job satisfaction. the american people, our customers, they will feel better about the product we produce. back in 1998 when president clinton signed the original workforce innovation act into

law he was introduced by a man named jim and josie from redding, pennsylvania. he spoke about how he had been laid off in 1995 at the age 49, two kids, no college degree. with the help of job-training programs he earned his bachelor's degree in computer science, found a new job in his field. today he and his wife still live in red. over the past 16 years he has been steadily employed as a programmer working his way up from contractor to full-time employee. in just a few months he is planning to retire after a lifetime of hard work. job-training program made a difference in his life. one thing he is thinking about doing in retirement is teaching computer science at the local community college so he can help a new generation of americans earn skills that lead directly to a job just like he had the opportunity to do. i ran for president because i believe even in a changing

economy, even in a changing world stories like gems are not just possible, they should be the norm. still believes the same thing. many of you believe the same thing. i don't just believe, i know america is full of men and women who work very hard and live up to their responsibilities, and all they want in return is to see that hard work pay off, that responsibility rewarded. they are not greedy. they are not looking for the moon. they want to know that if they work hard they can find a job, look after they're families, retire with dignity. they're not going to go bankrupt when they get sick. may be taking vacation once in awhile, nothing fancy. that is what they are looking for because they know that ultimately what is important is family and community and relationships. and that is possible. that is what america is supposed to be about. that is what i am fighting for every single day as president.

this bill will help move us along that path. we need to do it more. let's get together, work together and restore opportunity for every single american. with that, i would like to invite up some outstanding folks sitting in the audience to help make this happen and sign this bill with all those plans. all right? thank you very much, everybody. [applause] all right. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

just make sure viejo is in the front. it. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] all right. is that it? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [laughter] [inaudible conversations]

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] all right, everybody. congratulations. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

thank-you, everybody. [applause] >> tonight on c-span2 the director of national intelligence discusses the threats to national security. ..