mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this afternoon to address

what is -- hatch would the senator quelled for a unanimous consent request? too many timed be happy to yield. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak immediately following the distinguished senator from pennsylvania. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: and, mr. president, i'd like to thank the senator from utah because i got here late and i'm intrude being on his time, so he's been kind enough to paritily wait for me to -- patiently wait for me to make a few pointse pointses. a very, very serious problem is happening in america. we see increasing numbers of what we call corporate inversions, american corporations establishing their headquarters overseas, typically through the mechanism of purchasing a company overseas and establishing that as the headquarters. it's a problem -- first of all, i just hate to see any american company choosing to not be an

american company much it is very offensive to me at a deep level. most especially when -- if it were it be a pennsylvania company, but any company. secondly,  it would further une whatever little shred of faith americans have in our tax system is further undermined by seeing this. and most importantly over time, this dynamic that's happening, if unaddressed, i think it poses a very serious risk that we're going to lose jobs. we're going to lose corporate headquarters and all the very substantial and good-paying jobs that are always associated with an american corporate headquarters from senior executives to secretarial folks to the janitorial staff and everyone in between. there are a lot of jobs that go along with where people decide to establish their corporate headquarters, and i want it to be in america. that's my goal. that's my motivation. so it's useful, i think, to start with proposing the

question: why is this happening? why is this happening that american companies that have subs sid yairs overseas -- subsidiaryies overseas are deciding they better be headquartered somewhere other than america? it is happening because there is a tax code that drives them to do this. we have chosen to inflict on our workers and our businesses the highest marginal tax rate in the modern world so we are consistently competitive with our trading partners, any of the nations with which we compete. in addition to having such a high marginal rate, we have chosen quite foolishly, in my view, to adopt a system of taxation with respect to overseas subsidiaries that virtually no one else in the world adopts. specifically the difference between a high marginal rate and a low rate is pretty obvious. we've got the highest.

other countries have much lower. increasingly they're reducing their rate. we used to be in the middle of the pack. 20 years ago the american business tax rate was about the same of our trading partners and competitors. today it's much higher. we stand pretty much alone with a very high rate. that is obvious. that is pretty straightforward. the other piece, though, is how we deal with the income of subsidiaries. that is very different. here's what happens. imagine an american company has a subd sid yarry in -- subsidiary in ireland. the taxes are profited by the irish government. it is working, by the way, for them. be that as it may, the first layer of tax an american subsidiary operating in ireland pays is the tax to the irish government, 12.5%. here's what we do in america. we say if you want to bring that money home to america and invest it in america and build a new factory in pennsylvania or in

delaware and hire lots of work erks if you -- workers, if you o bring the money home to do that we've got a punishment in store for you. we're going to look at our rate, among the highest in the world at 35% and we'll give you credit for the 12.5% you paid to the irish government and we'll soak you for another 23%. that is the price we will charge you for investing in america. that's what we do. that's what our current tax system does. what if this irish company, this subsidiary operating in ireland, what if instead it was owned by a company that's headquartered in sweden or switzerland or any other number of european countries? you know what they do? what they do is say after you've paid your tax to the irish government, if you want to bring it home to one of those countries, there's almost no additional charge. there is a venom there is a --

there is a nominal toll. we put our countries at a competitive disadvantage. it is an unsustainable disadvantage. we end up trapping money overseas that would be invested in america but isn't. what is the response of the corporate management that has this irish subsidiary that made this money, paid its tax to the irish government? unfortunately the response typically is, well, i can't defend to my shareholders why i should bring that money home and get whacked another 23%. so instead i'd rather not do this, but i'm forced to look at investing somewhere else in the world where i won't have to pay this tax. this is what i'm being told, this is what's happening. the way to avoid all this is to be headquartered somewhere else other than america.

this is terrible. this is outrageous. we are doing this to ourselves. it's madness. i have to say i'm very disappointed with how we're responding in this body. we know that this is a problem. this is very real, and it's growing. and we're not taking it seriously. what we're going to vote on later this week, i think, or whenever the vote comes up, is not a serious attempt to solve this problem. it's a completely political show vote, the walsh-stabenow bill would do nothing to stop these ongoing inversions. it does nothing about the fundamental underlying cause that's driving these inversions. it does nothing to encourage the repatriation of all of this money. and, by the way, it's attached to a vehicle that is unconstitutional. we can't originate a tax bill in the senate. the constitution forbids that. and so if you're even -- if you're even pretending to be serious about tax reform, you

take up a house-passed vehicle so that it's at least constitutionally possible. our democratic friends chose not to even bother with that format. -- with that formality. and that is a shame. we ought to be having a serious discussion about this. there is a more serious alternative bill that some of our friends on the other side are advocates for, and that's a bill that would basically, it would make it harder for you to achieve the inversion that a company is attempting to achieve. it would require that the number of foreign shareholders be quite, quite high at the end of the transaction in order to qualify for it. so it sounds on the surface like that might work and make it harder to do this. the problem still goes to it doesn't deal with the underlying fundamental driver of this problem, which is a tax code that makes it uncompetitive to be american. and so if the levin bill, which is the one i'm referring to,

were to be adopted -- which i certainly hope it wouldn't be -- it continues to make it untenable for shareholders of a business to justify being headquartered in america. we will continue to see increasing number of start-ups and spinoffs and growth overseas where the governments choose not to punish their businesses the way we punish ours. so, mr. president, i think the answer is to deal with the underlying cause, not the reaction to that underlying cause. i don't want to see any more of these inversions. we're going to do that by lowering marginal corporate tax rates so there isn't a huge advantage in being anywhere else other than america, and to adopt a territorial system, a system where once a company pays the tax it owes to the country in which it's located, we don't punish them for bringing that

money home and investing it in america. that's the answer. that's the solution to this. this is no great mystery. the rest of the world has figured it out and they're ahead of us on this. if we would get serious about this very real problem and we made these reforms, what would the net result be? up to maybe over $1 trillion of money that's trapped overseas would be invested back in america. can you imagine what that would do to our economic growth, like almost immediately? the surge in job creation, the surge in expansion of existing businesses. you know, we have this tremendous renaissance in manufacturing that we're on the edge of because we've got such low-cost energy. it's an enormous advantage that we have. we could release this pentup demand and take advantage of this enormous opportunity if we had a tax code that just made it rational. i'm standing here very, very frustrated because i'm watching us eek out this miserable sort

of one, naib -- maybe if we're lucky 2% economic growth, employment levels way too low, workforce participation nowhere where it should be and i know we could be booming. we could be creating many hundreds of thousands new jobs every month. we could be bringing people back into the workforce. we could have the kind of strong economic expansion that we've hawlsd in the -- we've always had in the past after a severe recession but we're not getting there right now and it is partly because we have a tax code that is hampering us and driving up transactions none of us want to see. mr. president, i just hope that after we get through the political exercise we're going to go through this week, we'll get serious about solving the underlying problem. lowering the marginal rate so that we don't stand out as the worst place in the world to establish a business, and niewfg a -- and moving to a territorial based system so we stop -- start

investing in businesses that want to be in america. we're seeing the unfortunate national consequences of this bad policy. and with that, i will yield the floor to the senior senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i'm pleased to be in the same senate with this wonderful senator from pennsylvania, who does a very, very good job on the senate finance committee and, frankly, is one of the brighter lights in the united states senate. i really appreciate him. i appreciate his efforts. and i appreciate his leadership. now, mr. president, and i appreciate what he just got through saying. mr. president, soon we will begin debate on the so-called bring jobs home act. now, there are a number of serious problems facing our country. for example, our national debt currently exceeds $17.5 trillion. that's trillion with a "t." our economy continues to struggle. in fact, the economy shrunk last

quarter. we have an entitlement crisis that threatens to swallow up our government and take the economy down with it. and, of course, this has been widely discussed, we're seeing a parade of u.s. multinationals opting to move their legal domiciles to countries outside of our country, outside of the united states. during these difficult times, what we are hearing from my friends on the other side of the aisle is not very good. what are we hearing from these friends on the other side of the aisle? we're hearing talk about -- quote -- "economic patriotism." i didn't make that term up, mr. president. it's the latest catchphrase coming from the obama administration as they try to malign business models and investments that they don't like during an election year. just last week i received a letter from the treasury secretary calling for -- quote -- "a new sense of economic patriotism" as the

administration pushed for legislation that would piewn tively -- punitively and retroactively seek to limit corporate inversions. the president repeated the line in some of his speeches. of course, quote, economic patriotism, unquote is not a new catchphrase. it was trotted out by the president during the 2012 election campaign and now it appears to be making a comeback. not surprisingly, this comeback is taking place in the midst of another election year. apparently as part of this recycled campaign theme, we're going to have to once again debate and vote on the bring jobs home act, the same bill the senate rejected during the last election cycle. if enacted, this legislation would deny the deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses to the extent that such expenses were incurred for offshore outsourcing. that is to the extent an employer incurred costs in relocating a business unit from

somewhere inside the united states to somewhere outside of the united states; the employer would be disallowed a deduction for any of the associated business is expenses. wow, how antibusiness can you be? there are other ways of solving this problem. the bill would also create a new tax credit for in-sourcing. that is, if a company relocated a business unit from outside the united states to inside the united states, the business would be allowed a tax credit equal to 20% of the costs associated with that relocation. like i said, mr. president, this is a recycle bill. the political talking points surrounding the bill are also recycled. this bill and the related talking points are based on the oft repeated lie that there are special incentives or loopholes in the tax code that encourage businesses to move jobs overseas. no such loopholes exist. as the joint committee on

taxation noted in its recent analysis of this bill -- quote -- "under present law, there are no targeted tax credits or disallowances of deductions related to locating business units inside or outside the united states. deductions generally are allowed for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. these ordinary and necessary expenses may include expenditures for the relocation of a business unit." the truth couldn't be plainer, mr. president. yet, the supporters of this bill still talk as though this legislation will end some kind of special tax treatment or deduction for companies that outsource. there is no special treatment. under our tax code, relocation expenses are treated the same whether a company is relocating from a high-tech state in the united states to a lower-tax state, or if a company relocates

some operations offshore. as the nonpartisan congressional scorekeepers made clear, there are no targeted tax benefits related to relocating business units outside of the u.s. no credits. none. steer row. now, as the joint committee on taxation said, there has always been a deduction allowed for a business' ordinary and necessary expenses, and expenses asoabted with moving have awl always been regarded as deductible business expenses. that being the case, allowing a deduction for these expenses is not all that remarkable. it is the general rule. dis-allowing or putting exceptions on this deduction, on the other hand, would be an extraordinary deviation from longstanding tax policy and would needlessly add yet another level of complexity to our already overly complex tax code. still, let's pretend for a

moment that this deviation is, in terms of tax policy, justified. it's not, but there's no harm in pretending, i guess. even if we were justified in terms of policy, the revenue generated by this proposal is minuscule. according to j.c.t. -- the joint committee on taxation -- preventing businesses from deducting expenses relating to outsourcing would raise about $140 million over ten years. that's about $14 million a year, not $14 billion with a b, the but $14 million with an m. mr. president, to put the puny amount of this proposal in context, we should compare this research knew number against d. revenue number against the volume of business u.s. companies conduct overseas. according to the latest available i.r.s. statistics of income, in 2010, u.s. companies conducted about $1.05 trillion

in business abroad. and that's probably low given the sluggishness of the economy at this time -- or at that time, rather. on an annualized basis, the bring jobs home act, would curtail deductions representing about $40 million in expenses. now, that represents 4,000 of 1% of all overseas business conducted by american companies. let me repeat that. 4,000ths of 1% -- hardly perceptible. like i said, mr. president, we're talking about minuscule sums here. we're also talking about politics, as usual, in the united states senate. instead of facing these problems and facing them realistically, some prefer to play politics with it, and it is total b.s. yet over the last few years we've heard countless claims from my friends on the other side of the aisle that -- quote -- "closing loopholes for businesses that move jobs

overseas" -- unquote -- will pay for all kinds of things. earlier this month, for example, president obama claimed that part of his infrastructure plan could be paid for by making sure that corporations shipping jobs overseas -- quote -- "pay their fair share of taxes" -- unquote. well, if this bill is representative of this particular effort, the president doesn't plan on paying for very much. i bet the $14 million wouldn't be enough to pay for a single high-speed railcar for a round of i.r.s. bonuses. it's amazing to me what people will do for political advantage. it is shameless. they should be ashamed. of course, all of this discussion only focuses on one section of the bill. when you add in the other part of the bill, the 20% credit for expenses associated with in-sourcing, the bring jobs home act actually loses revenue --

loses revenue, adding $214 million to the deficit over ten years. so why are we debating this bill, mr. president? it's obviously not about raising revenue to pay for anything. it's clearly not about impacting businesses' economic decision making. and it's not about improving or simplifying our tax code. instead, mr. president, this bill is about politics, pure and simple. it was all about politics the last time we debated this bill in 2012. and it's about politics this time around. i, for one, am getting sick of it. i'm so sick of this body not doing its job. the democrats, both in the senate and the white house, think they gain some traction by talking about -- quote -- "economic patriotism" -- unquote -- and trying to paint republicans as the party of outsourcing. give me a break. the bill is yet another

election-year gimmick, pure and simple. and they ought to be ashamed. and, quite frankly, the american people are tired of gimmicks. what they want are serious solutions to the problems ailing our country. sadly, they're not getting that from the senate majority leadership these days. if we're serious about bringing jobs home, we should try working on legislation that will actually make the united states a better place to do business. let's make our country more attractive to do business. we should try working on legislation that will actually grow our economy. but we don't do much of that in the senate these days. in fact, we don't do much of anything in the senate these days, other than to continue to overbalance the federal courts with this administration's suggestions. yeah, we don't do much that have in the senate these days. instead, what we're seeing is an endless series of show votes

designinged to highlight whatever democratic campaign theme is popular that week. we've seen votes designed to highlight the supposed -- quote -- "war on women." we've seen votes designed to make it appear that republicans were indifferent to the plight of the middle class. now we're seeing votes designed to demonize republicans for their supposed lack of -- quote -- "economic patriotism. "quhation a fraud. when does it end, mr. president? from the looks of things, not anymore soon. i suspect that as we debate the so-called bring jobs home act, the republicans will offer a number of amendments that, unlike this bill, will actually create jobs here in the united states. i plan to offer some amendments along those lines, and aim sure many of my colleagues will do the same. this will be an opportunity to show whether the senate democratic leadership is serious about creating jobs and helping american workers and businesses, as they claim to be.

if in fact that's the aim of this legislation, then we should have a full and fair debate on it, including an open amendment process that will allow the senate to explore alternative approaches and to discuss different ideas on how best to create jobs in this country. but i wouldn't hold my breath watching how the senate is being running these days. let's talk about actually fixing our tax code. let's talk about growing our economy. let's talk about real solutions to the real problems facing our nation. i hope that's the kind of conversation we'll have on this bill. of course, i'm not naive. i know how the senate operates these days. i've come to the floor numerous times to lament the deterioration of this body under the current leadership. i'm not under any illusions that things are simply going to change overnight. and i might add that the senate leadership -- these are friend

of mine. i'm just disappointed in the way they're running the place. and i think my disappoint is correct and accurate. but, mr. president, make no mistake, things need to change. for the good of our country, things need to be done differently around here. like i said, the american people are tired of political gimmicks. they're tired of the endless campaign. they want to see the senate act in way that will produce results. sadly, with this legislation before us this week, it looks like we're in for yet another round of partisan gamesmanship. we can do things differently and once again i hope we will. but as i've said many times before, i'm not going tholed my breath. -- to hold my breath. i just wish that we would get together and work in the best interests of not only this body but our country. i don't see the leadership down at the white house either, nor do i think secretary lew's

letter on this issue was a justifiable letter. in fact, i think it's pathetic. and i'll very disappointed in him as a person -- as a leader in this country for that letter. and, of course, i wrote one back to him that certainly expresses my viewpoint. now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my next remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, yesterday the foreign relations committee voted 12-6 again to report the u.n. convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. this is similar to the committee vote two years ago. on december 4, 2012, the senate voted 61-38 on the treaty, less than the two-thirds that the constitution requires for ratification. i expect a similar result if the senate takes up the treaty again. yesterday afternoon the senior senator from iowa, a friend of mine, a person i have a lot of

regard for, spoke here on the floor about the treaty, and as he has done many time, urged its ratification. i don't doubt his sincerity at all. and i admire him personal will you for the long service he has given to this country. he called to concern that this treaty would undermine american sovereignty and self-government -- imaginary and unreal. "anyone who is hiding behind that issue does not want to vote for this treaty for some other reason." but it can't the reason of sovereignty." i will not speculate about what the senator from iowa meant by "some other reason." he and i have worked hard to promote the rights and opportunities of all persons with disabilities. i feel deeply about that issue. i feel as deeply as he does. we were partners in the development of passage of both the original americans with disabilities act in is the 90 and the a.d.a. amendments act in 2008. i take a back seat to no one

when it comes to legislation to help persons with disabilities, but since i gave a speech here a year ago explaining my concerns about this treaty's effect on american sovereignty and self-government, i have to respond to the charges by my friend from iowa. i can oa only speak for myself,t i am not hiding behind anything, including the sovereignty issue. that issue is neither imaginary nor hypothetical, and it is certainly not covered for some hidden, unexpressed reason for opposing this treaty. as i explained on july 10, 2011, this is a treaty not with other nations but's a is instead with the united nations itself. ratifying it would create obligations across at least 25 different areas of social, economic, cultural, and even political life. article 8, for example, would even regulate the united states

to -- quote -- "raise awareness throughout society, including at the family level, regarding persons with disabilities" -- unquote. if this is all the treaty did, if it simple snraite stated obl, i might support it. it would then be generally similar to the treaty regarding child labor that the senate ratified in 1999. that treaty states that ratifying nations shall take -- quote -- "immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labor" -- unquote. but these two treaties are radically different and the difference is the very reason the disability treaty threatens american sovereignty and self-government and the child labor treaty does not. the difference between these treaties is who has authority to determine whether ratifying nations are in compliance. the child labor treaty leaves that up to the ratifying nations

themselves. the disability treaty, however, gives authority to determine whether ratifying nations were meeting their treaty obligations to the united nations. that's considerably different and very dangerous. each nation must submit splines reports -- compliant reports to a u.n. committee of experts which uses its own criteria and standards to determine compliance and makes whatever recommendations it chooses. treaty advocates say that this u.n. committee will not have actual legal authority to require changes to domestic laws. and even if it did, we would not have to change a thing. i have three responses to that. first, as i explained in my speech last year, american sovereignty and self-government are not so narrow that they can only be undermined by the united nations literally assuming legal and political control of our country.

america is a republic under a written constitution, and in this system of government, the people must have the last word on everything, because the people are sovereign over everything. the american people and their elected representatives, not a u.n. committee, must have the last word, not only on our laws and regulations but also on our priorities, our values, and our standards. ratifying this treaty would endure a formal ongoing rule for the united nations in evaluating virtually every aspect of american life. it would say that the u.n., not the american people, has the last word about whether the united states is meeting its obligations in these many areas. that undermines american sovereignty and self-government. the united nations hardly needs a legally binding treaty to

opine on aspects of american life and public policy. it does so all the time. ratifying this treaty, however, would formally endorse the right of the united nations to do so, and, even worse, subject ourselves to their evaluation.. this is serious. we should think twice before we allow something like that to happen. second, we may already have the world's most expansive disability laws and regulations. i know because i helped bring them about. but this treaty goes far beyond that. the u.n. web site says that this treaty legally binds any nation ratifying it to adhere to its principles, and the treaty spells out what that adherence will require. ratifying nations agree to

enact, modify or abolish laws and regulations at all levels of government: federal, state and local, that are inconsistent with the treaty's principles. but the treaty also requires evaluating and changing any social customs and cultural practices that are inconsistent with those principles. anyone who is familiar with the united nations knows a u.n. committee is not likely to look as favorably on american customs and practices as it might on our laws and regulations. third, even though the u.n. disability treaty appears to have been modeled after the americans with disabilities act, it utilizes a very different concept of disability. for more than four decades american laws in this area have defined disability as an impairment that substantially

limits a major life activity. the disability treaty, however, states that -- quote -- "disability is an evolving concept" involving barriers that hinder -- quote -- "full and effective participation on an equal basis with others." in other words, the u.n. committee would use a subjective, fluid concept of disability to evaluate compliance with the treaty of u.s. laws that utilize an objective definition of disability. i'm pleased to note that even without united states ratification, no less than 34 nations ratified the u.n. disability treaty since it was sent to the senate on may 17, 2012. 15 of them since i spoke on the treaty a year ago. yesterday the senior senator from iowa asked someone to explain to him why the

disability treaty before us today raises concerns about sovereignty that the 1999 child labor treaty did not. well, i think i've done that here today. the disability treaty gives the last word on whether this nation is in compliance to the u.n., the child labor treaty leaves that entirely up to each nation. mr. president, i understand that senators have different understandings or concepts about such things as american sovereignty and self-government, but it is wrong to say that if i take a different view on that than the senior senator from iowa, i must be hiding my real reason for opposing this treaty. in our system of government, legislations and treaties are profoundly different ways of addressing public policy issues with profoundly different effects on sovereignty and self-government. i will continue to be a champion for disability legislation, but

i cannot support this disability treaty. i will support those who have disabilities, who have difficult times, as i did back then. and, frankly, i still remember both my great friend from iowa and myself walking off the floor to a hall filled with persons of disabilities, all of whom were crying and happy that we had done this in america. america leads the world in our approach towards disabilities issues. in all honesty, i don't want to lose our sovereignty on this issue, nor do i want to turn over our rights in our own self-interest to the united nations, as good as it may be from time to time. i've also seen where it hasn't been so good from time to time as well. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. oh, mr. president, i withdraw

that. i didn't see -- mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i actually come to the floor today to talk about the bring jobs home act, which is a bill that would stop big corporations from getting a tax break for sending jobs overseas while rewarding businesses that invest in bringing jobs here, back home. and i want to thank my colleagues, senator walsh and senator stabenow for leading the way on this important legislation. and i'm glad we now have the opportunity to debate it. i hope that our republican colleagues will take a serious look at the bring jobs home act and work with us in the coming weeks and months on other efforts to create jobs and long-term economic growth. mr. president, our economy has changed a lot over the last few decades. prices have risen for everything from college tuition to health care, and the shifting realities of the global economy have really made it harder to find the kinds of jobs workers use to

raise their families on. and as we all remember for far too many families, the financial crisis and the recession that began in december of 2007 was the last straw. it pulled the rug out from under workers and small businesses across the country. we have come a long way since then, but it's clear there is much more we need to do to create jobs and broad-based economic growth so that hardworking families in our country get a fair shot. mr. president, at a time when too many families are still struggling to make ends meet, there is absolutely no reason that taxpayer dollars should go towards helping big corporations send jobs overseas. that's why i was very proud today to vote in support of the bring jobs home act. mr. president, i think most americans would agree that they don't want their taxpayer dollars spent to help corporations send and outsource jobs. it really should be a no-brainer. unfortunately, mr. president,

over the last few years we spent far too much time here on avoiding crises rather than on legislation like the bring jobs home act that would help our workers and our businesses. government shutdowns and default threats and last-minute deals took up a lot of oxygen here in washington, d.c., and made workers and families really question whether their government could get anything done. so when chairman ryan and i were able to reach a two-year deal, a bipartisan budget agreement, i was hopeful that we would be able to move beyond the cycle of governing by crisis, and i hoped we could build on that bipartisan foundation established in that two-year budget deal and work across the aisle to create jobs and grow our economy. the bring jobs home act is exactly the kind of legislation i wanted to see us debate and work together on. mr. president, while we all know that republicans and democrats have some very different views on the best ways to encourage economic growth, we have taken

some bipartisan steps that show we should be able to work together on this and other job-creating legislation. the workforce innovation and opportunity act, which senator isakson from georgia and i were able to work together to finish is really a great example. that bipartisan legislation shows what's possible when members from different parties and different states and different chambers come together to get things done for the american economy. now i've heard from countless families and businesses in my home state of washington who told me how much they rely on effective workforce programs. so i was really thrilled yesterday to stand next to president obama as he signed more than a decade of hard work and negotiation into law when he signed that legislation. mr. president, i'm glad we were able to go beyond governing by crisis and reach a bipartisan agreement to thoroughly and responsibly improve our workforce development system.

we need to do the same thing. go beyond simply avoiding crisis when it comes to commonsense steps like the bring jobs home act. mr. president, i also want to note this is true for the highway trust fund. i hope that we will be able to not only avoid a construction shutdown short term, but work together to strengthen our transportation infrastructure in a comprehensive way. construction workers and businesses absolutely deserve the certainty of knowing we're going to avoid a shortfall in the highway trust fund and keep our critical transportation projects moving forward. but they actually deserve more than that, mr. president. they along with every other american family and business that uses our roads and bridges deserve a long-term solution, one that not only shores up the highway trust fund but also provides a plan for smart investments throughout our entire transportation system. my colleagues, senator wyden and senator boxer, have been leading the way on avoiding this

unnecessary crisis and addressing our transportation infrastructure challenges not just for next year, but for years to come. and i really want to thank both of them for their efforts. mr. president, i know the conventional wisdom is that congress will not be able to get anything done from now until november. but i don't see any reason at all why that ought to be the case. families and communities rightly want us to solve problems. just avoiding crisis isn't enough. so i'm very hopeful that in the coming weeks and months we cannot only avoid a construction shutdown, but also really lay the groundwork for smart investments in our country's roads and bridges and waterways. and i'm glad my republican colleagues are making it clear that they don't want another fight over keeping the government open, and i think we should build on that by working together to replace more of the harmful sequestration cuts that we are going to face in 2016. and instead of simply avoiding

self-inflicted wounds to jobs in the economy, we should be taking important steps like the bring jobs home act that encourage our companies to invest and hire right here at home. of course there's much more to do as well, and i never meant to suggest any of this would be easy. as we all know, compromise is not easy. but legislation like the bipartisan budget act and the workforce innovation and opportunity act show us that when both sides are ready to come to the table and make tough choices, we can make real progress. we have a lot of work to do over the next weeks and into the fall. and i hope we will take the bipartisan path that leads us to real solutions and goes beyond just simply avoiding the next crisis. that's what our constituents rightly expect. it's what they deserve. and it's what i hope we can all work together on to deliver. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without -- without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, as chairman of the senate committee on veterans' affairs, i wanted to just take a few minutes to update members of the senate as to where we are on some very, very important issues that impact veterans all over this country. the first point that i want to make is i think some good news. the committee had a hearing yesterday to hear system regarding the confirmation of robert mcdonald to be the new secretary of v.a. i think i can speak for the whole committee in saying that we were very impressed by what we heard from mr. mcdonald both in terms of his passion for the needs of veterans and also his administrative knowledge, his management skills as the former head of one of the large corporations in america. i think he left us with a very strong impression.

the result was today, a few hours ago by unanimous vote, the senate committee voted to confirm robert mcdonald as the new secretary of the v.a., and i hope very much his nomination will get to the floor as soon as possible. i think that's good news because the v.a. needs stable leadership sloan gibson, in my view, who has been acting secretary is doing an excellent job. he has already accomplished a lot, but it's important that we have a new permanent secretary on board. i hope that the members will see fit to confirm him as soon as we possibly can. mr. president, on an additional issue, i think as all members of the senate know about a month ago or so, we voted by a vote of 93-3, almost unanimously, to make sure that the veterans of our country get quality health care in a timely manner, that we

bring a new level of accountability to the v.a. and i'm very proud of the support that that legislation which was introduced by me and senator john mccain received, and i want to thank again senator mccain for his very strong efforts to make that happen and for his continued support of the veterans community. senator mccain made a statement just the other day -- i think it was yesterday -- published in "c.q." which i personally could not agree with more, and this is what he said. he said, in terms of the conference committee that we are in right now, trying to merge the senate bill and the house bill and come up with something that can pass in both bodies, he said, and i quote -- "we have got to sit down and get this done because we cannot go out for recess in august without

having acted on this bill." end of quote. and i think he's exactly right. and let me just -- picking up on that theme, just relate to my colleagues what the v.f.w. -- v.f.w. is having their annual convention in st. louis, and this is what they said. and i quote -- "the veterans of foreign wars of the united states is demanding that congress immediately pass a compromise bill to help fix the department of veterans' affairs before they adjourn for five weeks at the end of the month. pass a bill or don't come back from recess, end quote, said v.f.w. national commander william a.theen of georgetown, indiana. quote -- america's veterans are tired of waiting of secret waiting lists at the v.a. and on elected officials to do their jobs." end of quote. and i could not agree with the v.f.w. more on that issue. there was a bill a month ago.

this past year the c.b.o. said that that bill would cost $35 billion. we voted for that for emergency funding because the members here understood that taking care of veterans is a cost of war as much as spending money on tanks and guns and missiles. $35 billion emergency funding. the house passed its bill which was laid up assessed by the c.b.o. at $44 billion. but here's the good news. and without divulging the kinds of negotiations that we are having with chairman miller in the house -- and chairman miller is a serious man. i think he wants to get a bill passed, but i don't want to go into all the details here, but i think it is fair to say that the cost of that bill will be significantly less than what the c.b.o. originally estimated.

now, just a few minutes ago, mr. president, i received and others received a letter from the major veterans' organizations on an issue of important consequence. and again, without going into great detail about the nature of the negotiations that the house and senate are having on the veterans' bill, i think it's fair to say that one of the stumbling blocks is that i agree and the house agrees that it is imperative that we pass funding to make sure that veterans who are on long waiting lines right now get the quality care that they need now, and that means that if the v.a. cannot accommodate them in a timely manner, that they will go out to private doctors, community health centers or whatever and the v.a. will pay that bill. that is what we have got to do because it is unacceptable that

veterans remain on long wait lines, waiting periods and not get health care. there is a general agreement on that. debate about how much we should be -- that's going to cost over a two-year period, but i think we can reach some resolution on that. here's where the difference of opinion lies. without divulging anything, this has been in the newspapers. sloan gibson, the acting secretary, came forth before the senate veterans' committee last week and he made it very clear that while we have got to deal with the emergency of long waiting periods and get people the contracted care that they need simultaneously, we must make sure that the v.a. has the doctors, the nurses, the medical personnel, the i.t. and the space they need in order to deal with this crisis so that two years from now we're not back in

the same position that we are. and he came forward with a proposal. in fact, it cost $17.6 billion. i think we can lower that amount of money because some of that request is not going to be spent this year or even next year. but the issue here is that we have got to strengthen the v.a., their capacity so that veterans do not remain on long waiting periods and that we can get them the quality and timely care they need. now, what i wanted to mention, mr. president, is just an hour or so ago, i received -- and chairman miller who is chairman of the house committee on veterans' affairs, he got the letter. richard burr, who is the ranking member on the senate committee. mike michaud, the ranking member of the house, we received a

letter from a variety of veterans' organizations, virtually every major veterans' organization. and this is who they are. they are the disabled american veterans. they are the veterans of foreign wars, the v.f.w. they are the paralyzed veterans of america, the vietnam veterans of america, the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, the military officers association of america, the u.s. coast guard chief petty officers association and many other organizations, many, many other organizations. and i want to take a moment to read what they said, because this is terribly, terribly important. what they are saying in essence is yes, we need emergency funding to make sure that veterans tomorrow get the health care they need from the private sector or anyplace else, but we also need to strengthen the v.a. so that over the years they can

provide the quality and timely care that veterans are entitled to. and i am going to read this letter because it is important that members of the senate and the house understand where the major veterans' organizations are coming from, and i quote -- "last week, acting secretary sloan gibson appeared before the senate veterans' affairs committee to discuss the progress made by the department of veterans' affairs over the past two months to address the health care access crisis for thousands of veterans. secretary gibson testified that after reexamining v.a.'s resource needs in light of the revelations of our secret waiting lists and hidden demand, v.a. required supplemental resources totaling $17.6 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year through the end of fiscal year 2017. as the leaders of organizations representing millions of

veterans, we agree with secretary jibson that there is a need to provide v.a. with additional resources now to ensure that veterans can access the health care they have earned either from v.a. providers or through non-v.a. purchased care. we urge congress to expeditiously approve supplemental funding that fully addresses the critical needs outlined by secretary gibson either prior to or at the same time as any compromise legislation that may be reported out of the house-senate conference committee. whether it costs $17 billion or $50 billion over the next three years, congress has a sacred obligation to provide v.a. with the funds it requires to meet both immediate needs through non-v.a. care and future needs by expanding v.a.'s internal capacity. and i continue. again, this is a letter from almost every major veterans'

organization. and i continue -- "last month, we wrote to you. they wrote to the chairman of the house and senate veterans' committee. we wrote to you to outline the principles and priorities essential to addressing the access crisis, a copy of which is attached. the first priority, and i quote, -- "must be to ensure that all veterans currently waiting for treatment must be provided access to timely and convenient health care as critically as medically indicated." end of quote. second, when v.a. is unable to provide that care directly, quote -- "v.a. must be involved in the timely coordination of and fully responsible for payment for all authorized non-v.a. care." third, congress must provide supplemental funding for this year and additional funding for next year to pay for the taxpayer expansion of non-v.a. purchased care. finally, whatever actions v.a. or congress takes to address the

current access crisis must also, quote, protect, preserve and strengthen the v.a. health care system so that it remains capable of providing a full continuum of high-quality, timely health care to all enrolled veterans. and, mr. president, without objection, i would like to submit this letter for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: essentially, what the letter goes on to talk about is that many of these organizations have been looking at this issue for years, and in their independent budget have noted that the way needs more space because you have many hospitals where there are not enough examination rooms, and that slows down the ability of doctors and nurses to treat patients, but we need more doctors and nurses. so for many of these organizations, this is not new news. they have known it for years.

so, mr. president, here's where we're at. the good news is i think that we can bring forth a bill which deals with emergency contracted out care for veterans today on long waiting periods. i think we can deal with the issue senator mccain feels very strongly about, that is making sure that veterans who live 40 miles or more owe way from a v.a. facility will be able to go to private physician of their choice. and i think we can also strengthen the v.a. in terms of doctors and nurses and information technology and space so that we don't keep running into this problem year after year. it is going to take the v.a. time in order to bring in the doctors and nurses and do the construction. so, mr. president, i would hope, i just -- i don't want to get into the details of the discussions that we're having with the house, but i did want

to make veterans -- veterans and, in fact, members of congress aware of where i believe that we are at this moment. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i ask that rachel king, my intern, have privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. americale: -- mr. merkley: i'm rising to address the bring jobs home act, but before i do i want to note how much i appreciate the leadership of the senator from vermont in fighting for quality care, quality programs for our u.s. veterans. this is incredibly important, our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are coming home from iraq and now from afghanistan, and they have stood up for us and we need to stand up for them. bernie sanders is leading that effort and i appreciate him for doing so. mr. president, i rise to address the legislation that we are officially debating, the bring jobs home act. earlier today the senate voted on whether to debate this legislation to help bring manufacturing jobs back to america to onshore these jobs, and i was very heartened to see a 93-7 overwhelming bipartisan majority saying yes, let's turn

to this bill and work on increasing manufacturing jobs in america. this is a much better result than we had just two years ago, when some of my colleagues combined to thwart the ability to get -- the ability to close the motion to proceed and we were unable to get onto this bill. but here we are, in an economy where while jobs have been returning, quality living wage jobs remain elusive. indeed, 60% of the jobs that we lost in 2008-2009 were living-wage jobs and the jobs we're getting back, only 40% of those are living-wage jobs. the difference between those two numbers means that millions of families that had a strong foundation just a few years ago, while they may have

employment today do not have a strong foundation because they are chasing part-time jobs, minimum wage jobs, near minimum wage jobs, jobs with low to no benefits. and that is not a foundation on which a family can thrive. so this bill, it's important. the bring jobs home act does two simple things. it closes tax loopholes that ask the american people currently to subsidize the costs for corporations to ship jobs overseas. and second, it creates a new tax incentive to encourage companies to bring jobs home with a tax credit that covers 20% of the cost of relocating those jobs back into the united states. i am an original cosponsor of this legislation because this is an item of huge importance to my

home state of oregon. manufacturing is a tremendous driver of oregon's economy. in fact, if you look across the nation and you look at what share of a state economy is driven by manufacturing, oregon is often first or second. so manufacturing matters a great deal. when manufacturing thrives, oregon economy is going to do well. and when it dives, the oregon economy is not going to do well. and if you look at this from yet another perspective, we can see that states have been losing manufacturing jobs over the last ten-plus years, and it's sizable numbers. in the period of about 2001 to about 2011, that ten-year period, we lost about five million manufacturing jobs. or to put it differently, we

lost 50,000 factories. well, what would we do today to have those five million living-wage, family-wage, good-paying jobs? one thing we should do is to pass this bill, to quit subsidizing the export of our jobs overseas. these tax breaks which were put through by powerful special interests for the benefit of a few multinationals have done enormous damage to the united states of america, enormous damage to our families and this is our chance to reverse that. one study the economic policy institute study in 2012 looked at the number of jobs created in this dynamic between additional sales overseas versus additional imports, those additional imports, of course, reflected jobs lost. and in their estimate, oregon gained about 9,100 jobs from

additional exports and we lost about 59,000 jobs. that differential of 50,000 jobs, that's an enormous impact on the state of oregon. you can put it this way -- it's about 2% to 3% of the number of jobs in our state economy. so it's an issue that really hits home. and i know that oregon is not alone. in every single state west and east and urban and rural, yes, democrat and republican, this has been the story in which jobs lost have exceeded jobs gained. so this is why i strongly hope that this body of folks representing the west and east and north and south and the urban and the rural, the blue and red, can come together to get this job done for the american people.

think about it this way for a moment -- under our current tax code, we are asking working families who are paying income taxes to subsidize the exportation of their own jobs. that makes no sense. if you went out on the street in eugene or pendleton or medford, cities across my state and you started asking people what they think about that, you'd probably hear a common theme. one person might say that is absurd. another might say that goes against our own economic self-interest. a third might just simply say that's wrong, that hurts families. and all of them would be right. so let's right this wrong, this inflicted wound on living-wage jobs, this inflicted wound on our families. now, over the last few years

we've started to see a bit of improvement in that manufacturing jobs have started to grow. but we need to nurture that trend, we need to encourage that direction. i know that for the oregon families who are at the heart of the manufacturing economy, whether or not their jobs stay here in the united states of america means everything. it means the quality of life they'll have as adults but it also means the quality in which they will bring to their job as parents of their children, and raising their children to seize opportunities of the future. so let us continue to work together to keep jobs here in oregon, here in america. let's take on this issue of

offshoring that has deeply affected millions of americans. it is a problem within our power to fix and we are now on the bill that starts us down this path of fixing it. so let's not get stalled. let's make sure we have the majority to close debate to get to a final vote. if anyone has anything to say and you don't feel you've had time to say it, come and say it tonight. say it tomorrow. say it tomorrow evening. but get down here and make your notions known so that you don't have to vote that you need more time when it comes time to shut down debate and actually vote on this bill. paralysis has been the practice that has so hurt this chamber's ability to address major issues affecting america. that is not right, so i

encourage my colleagues, whatever you have to say, come down here and say it. don't once again obstruct the ability of this chamber to take on a major issue affecting families across this land. so thank you, mr. president, for the time and opportunity to speak to this bill. i know the presiding officer has been championing a whole collection of bills designed to nurture manufacturing. that collection of bills could do great work and it would be a logical additional step as we take on these provisions to stop offshoring and increase inshoring. we should turn to some of the other bills that the senator from delaware has put together. one of those bills is a bill i sponsored. it's called the build act. because i have gone on a manufacturing tour in my state of oregon, visited a large number of manufacturers and the

common thing i hear from those who are managing the factory floor or from the c.e.o.'s is we need more folks coming out of high school, coming out of community college that have both the aptitude for using tools and the desire to use tools. now, it used to be when i was growing up this simply came from growing up because we had to have -- a habit of building things in our garages. our garages were full of tools in a working-class community. my garage is still full of tools but i can tell you moo that my children are not likely to find themselves out in the garage making things because that's not the culture today. if they're going to learn the joy of making things, they're going to have to have the opportunity to have shop classes. we have a fancy name nor it now, career technical education but i think shop classes gives a better visually impression,

metal shop and wood shop, things you can bring home, i made this carving, i made this mask. i've been to some shop classes in oregon where the high school students will not helm making the simple things like i made. they are making some of the most incredibly gorgeous furniture have you ever seen, sophisticated skills in using tools. we need more of those shop classes to help feed the manufacturing economy, help nurture the manufacturing economy. so it's a win-win for our children, it's a win-win for our economy, it's a win-win in terms of creating living-wage jobs that are a strong foundation for families to thrive. thank you very much, mr. president. and i yield the floor and 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 north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the time until 4:30 p.m. will be controlled by the republicans. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to offer a compromise on the l.n.g. export issue. and i'd like to put up my first chart here. i think that this is both a solution and a compromise to l.n.g. export. the reality is, we need to be able to construct l.n.g. export

facilities. there's been -- there has been debate in this body as to how that approval process should work. some want to take the department of energy completely out of the process and just allow companies to build l.n.g. facilities, let the market work. and that is actually an approach i advocate and i've joined with others on that type of legislation. and that legislation has bipartisan support. i think we could get it to the floor -- i think if we could get it to the floor, we'd have more than 60 votes to get passed. others have advocated a more cautious approach, which is essentially continuing the current state of play wherein d.o.e. can take years before they make a decision on these l.n.g. export terminals. so what i offer today is the l.n.g. certainty act, which i believe is a compromise between those two points of view. it would provide for an expedited process but do it in a way where we keep the department

of energy in the equation. and, you know, why is it -- why is it so important that we act now? well, this is a bill that is very much about jobs. we're right now on a motion to go to a bill that purportedly would create jobs. now, i don't think that that bill will create jobs. i think it will create more regulation, more costs for companies that are trying to create jobs. so instead, why don't we bring up some of these energy bills that will not only create jobs but accomplish many other things as well, like economic growth. economic growth that will generate revenues to reduce the deficit and the debt without raising taxes or increasing regulatory burden. why not pass some of these energy bills that will provide better environmental stewardsh

stewardship. this l.n.g. certainty act will provide not only job growth, economic growth but also better environmental stewardship. and it will also help provide national security, national security for us and for our allies. and that's a very big reason why it's so important that we act now. we have a president who's talking about what vladimir putin and russia should do and what she shouldn't do. he's talking about it. but we've got to go beyond talk to action. what is that action? we need to impose stronger sanctions on russia. i think there's broad bipartisan support in this senate to impose stronger sanctions on russia, but for those sanctions to be truly effective, we need the european union to join with us in imposing those sanctions. and we can have a meaningful impact on what putin and russia

do. but we've got to act and we've got to get the european union to act with us. so why aren't they acting with us? well, the reality is, vladimir putin has them over a barrel literally. they are dependent, european countries are dependent on russia for their energy. so they are very reluctant to impose sanctions when they have to get their energy from russia. here's a graph that shows how much all of these different european countries get in terms of think energy, their natural gas from europe. and you can see in some cases it's 100%. 60%, 50%. some obviously it's less, but for many, many european countries, they are dependent on russia for their natural gas. another way to show it is here's the pipeline network coming in from russia. here you see russia and all these pipelines coming into europe through the ukraine supplying natural gas.

so obviously these countries are very worried about imposing sanctions which, of course, would create difficulty for them from an economic perspective as well as russia but they're very concerned about energy supply. and that's why we've got to act and we've got to act now to make sure they have another supply of energy so that they can join with us in meaningful sanctions against russia. so how does the l.n.g. certainty act work? well, quite simply, it provides that the department of energy must make a decision on whether or not to approve an l.n.g. export application within 45 days of completing -- of that company completing its preliminary application to the ferc, to the federal energy regulatory commission. so understand, right now companies have to apply both to the department of energy and to the ferc, federal energy regulatory commission, they have to apply to both in order to get approval to build an l.n.g. facility. the ferc, if you talk to these

companies, the ferc has a fairly rational process that they know they can step through in an orderly fashion. it's pretty dependable, pretty certain, takes a certain amount of time, covers all the bases. but they know they can get through it. the d.o.e., department of energy, on the other hand, doesn't have any specific time frames or necessarily criteria on how or whether they'll give approval to these companies, so it creates uncertainty and it creates real delaymen delay. as i said, some people to want take the department o departmeny out of the equation completely, others want to keep it as it is. that's why this is a truly compromise in that we keep the department of energy in the mix but we require that within six -- that within 45 days after the preliminary application to the ferc is approved, which takes about six months up to as much as a year, within 45 days after that preliminary application is filed with the ferc, the d.o.e. then has 45

days to make a decision. so you've still got whatever safeguards you know, some people need to be in there as far as the d.o.e. d.o.e. is still in there, they still have that safeguard but you have a reasonably expedited process, you have a reasonably certain process for these companies that are applying to try to get approval. well, right now we have on the order of 13 different companies. one has conditional approval, but 13 different companies that are seeking approval to build l.n.g. facilities. many of these companies have been waiting over a year, some one to two years and they're not even through the department of energy process yet. so while we need to start moving natural gas to europe, while europe needs source of supply so that they can stand with us on sanctions against russia, these applications continue to sit in

limbo. how does that possibly make sense? why aren't we acting? why is it adequate or satisfactory for the president to just talk about what should be done instead of doing something? this is action we can and must take. i'll give you an example. next chart, please -- of a project of what we're talking about. i'm showing you 13 different projects that are in limbo. here is one, take a specific example. this is the golden pass project, a project that exxonmobil wants to build. they're ready to invest $10 billion -- $10 billion -- today and save taxes to build an export facility that will move liquefied natural gas from this country to europe. why would we want to sit and hold them up? here you see a time line. they've been in this process already for more than a year, and it looks to me like they don't even figure they're half-way done yet. and there's no certainty from

the department of energy when they will be done. yet here's a $10 billion projet that's sponsored by a company, exxon, that certainly has the ability to build it, that will take l.n.g., liquefied natural gas, to europe. what's the rationale for holding them up, for just making them wait is this aren't we nothing of a sho-- forjust making them ? aren't we moving to a jobs bill? this is a just one example of the more than 13 that i just showed you that are sitting in limbo. that's exactly i didn't joined with senator mccain, senator mor cow askemurkowski and senata soavment the whole focus was to build the gathering systems we need, move it to these l.n.g. facilities and give companies the approval and the authority to build those l.n.g.

facilities, so that they can move that gas to our allies. all of these steps create jobs. they all create jobs. and not only do we create jobs in awful these steps, producing more gas, building the gathering systems and building the l.n.g. facilities, but instead of doing this -- here you got an oil well, which is flaring off gas, burning it off. because when you produce this oil -- this is an example in my state in north dakota where we're flaring off 1.5 million dollars worth of gas every day. so instead of just burning that gas off, we'd actually have a market for it. so that we could capture it, move it to the l.n.g. facilities, and export it to our allies, not only strengthening our national security and their national security, but creating a market for our gas.

right now we create 30 trillion yocubic feet of gas in this country and we use 26 trillion. so gas is flared off instead of captured and sent to market. you with a nts to talk about job ceerks you want to talk about economic growth, you waptsz to talk about environmental stewardship. you want to tbawk working with our allies to actually do sag in response to russian aggression. you want to dhiel something or just keep talking about it. so while we're considering jobs bill, why don't we consider the l.n.g. certainty act. the reason i've introduced this compromise bill is so we can do this. move natural gas from the united states through facilities to you artoour allies. it's that simple. that's what it's all about. that's why, again, i joined with senator mccain, murkowski, and

senator barrasso to introduce the north at listen particular energy security act. but if that's too heavy a lift, then let's take up the l.n.g. certainty act and just approve the ability to build these facilities. let's at least take that first step. and there are other bills that we could take up as well that are true job creators, real job creators, where we empower companies across this great nation, large and small, to create jobs, to create more energy, to create better environmental stewardship and to strengthen national security. energy bills that myself and others have introduced here. the l.n.g. seniority act, which i am talking about now; the north atlantic energy security act, which i have referenced as well; keystone, the keystone x.l. pipeline. why aren't we building that right now so we can tell the

middle east we don't need any oil from the middle east. we've got it covered. the domestic energy and jobs act, which is a whole series of bills that have been passed in the house, that i've naffed in the senate, that would cut the regulatory burden, increase the amount of energy we produce in this country both onshore and offshore. or the empower states act, where we give states the ability to take a primary role in regulating hydraulic fracturing so you have the certainty to continue the investment that is producing an energy renaissance in this country. all of these acts have been filed. all of these acts create jobs. why are they being held up? so that we can consider a bill that increases regulation, increases taxes on companies in this country, and will have the impact of reducing jobs and reducing economic growth rather than accomplishing all of the things we're talking about here,

not just jobs, not just economic growth but national security and actually working with our allies to accomplish something unstead of just talking about -- instead of just talking about it. making putin tow the line rather than just telling him he should. with that, mr. president, i know that my colleagues are here to propose additional job-creating ideas swvment at thiideas as we. at this time, i would yield to the outstanding senator from the state of georgia. mr. isakson: thank the senator from the dakotas for yielding the floor to meevment before he leaves, i want to say something about what the senator just said. in fact, i was sitting here listening -- i am going to approve that i was actually listening to his speech. i did the because he was right on tampleght but my thought process went back to the 1970's when in the 1970's opec and the arab oil barring basically held

the united states of hostage. i remember waiting in line for an hour and a half to get $10 worth of gasoline because we had limited supply. now we sit here in a country some 40 years later that has unlimited resources available to us if we'll just take the political moves, the regulatory moves and the practical moves to exhibit our power and extract those resources. for example, the keystone pipeline that you talk about, not a single molecule of carbon will be generated by bringing that petroleum underground through a pipeline from canada to houston. and we'll refine it more soundly and more environmentally than the chinese would or anybody else would. then we'll have an almost infinite supply to take care of our own country internally and also use it as a part of our soft power around the world. the senator is absolutely correct about germany and about the ukraine and about russia. if we become their surrogate and we replace russia in terms of natural gas to that part of world, we take away the only asset russia has.

russia has relegated toffs being a gas station with a flag. we can lower our price by .9 a cent. we can use our soft power of our natural resources to bring back what we need in terms of peace and stability in that part of world, and the by-product of doing it is not just energy sciewmplet it is not just better diplomatic and international policy. but it is jobs for americans, jobs to build the pipelines, jobs to operate the pipe lierntion jobs to equitytract or frack the natural gas out. we're sitting on a ham sandwich starving to death because governmental policy will not let us do some of the things we ought to do. so i came to talk a little bit about job creation and bringing jobs home -- the bringing jobs home bill is a $214 million bill which is a rounding error in terms of the way we do business around here and will do nothing except penalize companies for doing what they have to do and offer a rewashed that is really not a -- offer a reward that is

really in the a carrot to bring jobs bafnlgt i want to thank the senator for his continuing and persistent emphasis on our energy powered and independence. it's voices like his that need to be heard more and more in this chamber so we can solve the economic problems we have. so i commend the senator from north dakota, thank you. i am a southerner, so i slipped up on that. mr. hoeven: i would like to thank the good senator and appreciate it very much. mr. isakson: i tries talk about the issue of the day that's before you the bring jobs home bill. i appreciate any effort to bring jobs home and to create new jobs at home, but i want to talk about how we're really making a false promise about bringing jobs back because we're not doing the things we really should be dock. if you asked me to make my choirks what should we do in the united states senate on the fluor of the senate to create as many jobs as we can as fast as we can in america, a tax credit for bringing jobs home won't do it, a and tax penalty won't do

it. but approving the keystone pipeline will do it and giving the president trade promotion authority will do it. both are pending on the floor of the senate. we could take them up tomorrow and if we did, we could make massive impact on job creation in america. i happen to be the ranking republican on the finance committee subcommittee on trade. we have two major trade agreements pending in the united states of america that we're a part of current negotiations. one of them is the trans-pacific partnership. one is the trans-a the the tranc partnership. the asians and scangdz nativians both tell me when i talk to them, when are you going to give your president trade promotion authority because we know until the united states congress gives the president that authority you're really not serious about negotiating trade deals. i first came to the congress of the united states in 1999, one year after we gave president

bill clinton trade promotion authority. then we had a pledg plethora ofe trade goings. trade promotion means we give the president to authority to negotiate the trade. we don't get a vote on amendment after amendment after amendment. we get a vote on the totality of the agreement. we give sincere to our foreign trading partners that what we say is what we mean and we're going to give our president the authority to negotiate those deals and we'll make them subject to our ratification in the senate. trade promotion authority is important for america, for jobs, for our comirks and quite frankly it is important for bringing jobs home to the united states of america. the keystone pipeline, which i mentioned a minute ago in talking about senator hoeven's remarks, the keystone pipeline is job creator, the unions are for it. business is for it. most person americans are for i. it only takes the signature of the president to let it go.

the state department has signed off of it. there's only one reason we're not building it. that's because of environmental fear. think about it for a second. if you don't phut in a pike and bring it underground, you can phut on a truck and create a whole lot of carbon molecules. we're trying to real estate duce carbon in the air. so building a palestine is environmentally safe. it's the way to do it. i don't understand why the president won't do it, but i think we need to continue to talk about it because the energy independence that senator hoeven talked about is exactly what america is on the cusp of having. energy independence, like we suffered when we were dependent in the 1970's and 1980's and we paid a big price for it. we lost our position and stature in business. we now have the chance to secure it not just for a decade but for this century in the united states of america. i hope the president will reconsider his unwillingness to sign the keystone pipeline and do so. now, on the job issue, and on

the invirginia,, which has brought about this entire discussion, and for those that might be listening or watching, inversion is where american corporations decide to acquire a foreign country and invert to be the -- their headquarters being in the foreign country rather than the united states of america to take advantage of a better corporate tax rate. we are now the highest corporate tax rate in the world, highest in the world. japan, which used to be up above us or with us, they have lowered there. canada has lowered there. ireland has lowered theirs. jobs are going offshore because the cost of taxes is lower, because it is a tax code that promotes growth, promotes business and promotes development. we need a pro--growth tax policy in the united states. we need a more simpler tax code. we need a fairer rate of taxation. we need to get rid of corporate welfare. a lot of my frengds on the other side are always talking about corporate welfare. they're rievment we did it on ethanol subsidies when we were subsidizing people to make ethanol. that was an intent through a tax incentive to cause something we

thought would be the right thing to happen for the environment which dent work. those are the type of things we ought to stop doing, those type of corporate welfare. but what we should do is give a pro--growth tax code to the american business people whether they're c corpscorps or s corps. i find it interesting when the old soviet union fell, when the soviet satellite states like estonia and latvia became independent countries, if you go back and study what they did to separate themselves from the soviet union, estonia, for example. the new president of estonia after they bim independent did three things: gave the state-oathed departments and let them rent it as a home i two, they cut the tax rate from 50% to 25% and revenues went up and not down because people thought

25% was a fair rate and they didn't cheat, because there was a lot of cheating going on in the 50% rate. then on the corporate tax in he estonia, they said we're not going to tax your profits as long as you reinvest those profits in jobs or research and development. the rest of the it will be taxed. they incentivized research and development, incentivized deployment. they made estonia feel like they had fairer taxes and what happened. you fly into town in estonia today and it is like flying into dallas or atlanta. there are cranes everywhere, economic improvement everywhere. they have what people perceive to be a fair code and incentivize people to do business and make money. you raise revenue in america by raising prosperity, not by raising rates of taxation. we prove that every time we lower the capital gains tax. every year following the lowering of the capital gains tax, revenues from capital gains went up and not down. why? because people h