act, if you will provide at least 5% of their income as a contribution by the company toward their employment, if you will give a preference for the hiring of veterans, you will be entitled to the patriot employer tax credit, a credit for each employee that you have. that, i think, is the proper incentive, incentivizing and rewarding companies that are making a difference, a positive difference in the lives of their employees, staying in the united states, committed to this country. how would i pay for that? well, i have an idea. it would end the deductions currently available for corporations that want to move their jobs overseas. to me, that makes perfect sense. encourage the payment of americans in good-paying companies and discourage sending jobs overseas. why won't the republicans discuss this with us? why isn't this a bipartisan issue? do they honestly believe that only democrats object to shipping american jobs overseas? everyone objects to it. we want to keep good-paying jobs at home. we want to be able to walk into stores and see that label made in the u.s.a. more and more often. we want to encourage our companies to stay in america, to set the standard of america, to lead in the world. let's have a tax code that helps us reach that goal. mr. president, i yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. durbin: i would like to ask that the quorum call be suspended for the purpose of acknowledging that the time of the quorum call will be equally divided between the democrats and republicans for the remainder of the debate. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection to the unanimous consent request? without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: my understanding is we are in a quorum call. i would ask that be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: mr. president, i rise in support of the bring jobs home act. there has been some discussion on the floor about this act already, but i want to lend my voice to that. this is a commonsense bill to bring good-paying middle-class jobs back here to america. one of the things we have seen statistically when you look at this terrible recession this nation went through a few years ago, we see that our recovery has been slow. that's one -- and one of the reasons it has been sluggish is because these good middle-class jobs in many cases just aren't here anymore. they've gone overseas. they have gone to china, mexico, vietnam, other -- other countries around the globe, and they are just not here, and we need to grow this economy from the middle. we see the statistics where we see that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. that should concern everyone in this chamber. i know it concerns economists and it concerns people all over the country. these are kitchen table issues for people, but we need to grow our economy from the middle, and that's what this proposed act is all about. my home state of arkansas is a good example of this. we have seen good companies like levi strauss, whirlpool, fruit of the loom. these are name brand companies, everybody knows these companies, but we have seen them one after the other leave arkansas to abandon our state and our nation to go find cheap jobs, cheap wages overseas. and to rub salt in the wounds, these workers, although they are -- through their hard-earned tax dollars, these very same workers have helped to pay for the companies to move their jobs overseas because the companies are able to write off the move overseas as a business expense, and in effect the u.s. taxpayer ends up helping to export jobs out of the u.s. mr. president, it is a policy that does not make sense. it's a policy we need to change, and that's one part of the bring jobs home act that i think is critically important that we pass as quickly as possible. i think most of my colleagues will agree with me when they say this tax giveaway is counterproductive. in fact, it's outrageous that we continue to allow this to happen. fortunately, even though my state has lost some jobs, we have some very good job replacements as well. last week, i had the good pleasure and tune of meeting with a man in rogers, arkansas, named mel redman. he is the founder and c.e.o. of a small toy company. this toy company has moved its operation from china to rogers, arkansas. and that's in northwest arkansas. it's in the northwest corner of the state. because the economics of manufacturing now favor -- quote -- made in the u.s.a. that is a very positive thing. we're seeing this with companies all over the country, and we would see even more of it if we pass the bring jobs home act. a study shows that the $18.55 an hour average wage created by hi business in arkansas -- and this is the toy company i was talking about -- created by his company in arkansas will pump $3 million back into the local economy, so he pays his people $18.55 an hour. the stimulative effect of that is $3 million into the local economy. it also shows that each job that he creates will support four other jobs that provide services to what he's doing, so they may be truck drivers, they may be people that print the boxes or the labels or whatever, make the containers, whatever it is, but for every job he creates, there is four other jobs that are created, so there is a huge multiplier effect in bringing jobs home to america. and if we see that in rogers, arkansas, you know you see that in the other 50 states in the union. so if you want to keep america as a nation of makers -- and that is in our d.n.a. as a nation -- we make things in this country. we have always done it. we have always done it better than anybody else in the world. if we want to keep america a nation of makers, we need more companies like redman and associates there in arkansas. but this will only happen if we tip the scale in the right direction, and that's what this bring jobs home act is all about. the policy that we make here in the senate or we don't make here in the senate has a huge bearing on what the future of the nation looks like. let's do the right thing here. let's end this tax giveaway for the companies that ship their jobs overseas like mexico and china and many other countries. let's instead provide meaningful tax incentives for those jobs to come back home to create these good-paying middle-class jobs right here in the good old u.s. of a. this from my standpoint is good commonsense policy, good commonsense economics, and i hope my colleagues will join me as well as many, many others of us here in the chamber in supporting this bring jobs home act. with that, 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: quorum call: a senator: madam president, i move we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: and i would like to speak for a few minutes. mr. blunt: i want to start by talking about these court cases yesterday that create more complications particularly for the president's health care plan. the idea that the law is specific, which is what the washington, d.c., federal court of appeals said, that the law specifically says in a case that they dealt with that you can only get the taxpayer subsidy if you work through the state exchanges. there's no question that the law in dealing with this issue in clear comments makes that case and the judges agreed that that was the case that was made. now, what happened was not only did many states not decide to set up the exchanges because of the expense involved and the problems involved and the complication of the law, but even states that did set up the exchanges couldn't get them to work. i don't know that any state spent more money than oregon d did. certainly they spent a lot of money. and in the first six months didn't sign up anybody, nobody, not a single person was able to sign up over -- through the exchange that they had set up. massachusetts, who'd actually had experience with its own law and i would have thought would have been the easiest possible exchange to set up, also admitted that they failed and that they would -- if you lived in massachusetts, you needed to go through the federal exchange. i think 36 states have either not set up the exchange or tried to and failed. and so in 36 states, people, the only option they have to get insurance in an exchange as an individual, and many of their other policies were previously canceled because of the law, is to go to the federal exchange. and now the court in a ruling in the d.c. court says, well, you can go to the federal exchange, and we should understand this. i've been on record saying if you have to have -- i think you should try your best to have insurance. if the insurance you need is what the federal government proscribes that you should have and that's insurance you can afford, obviously the exchange can be a place to get it and it's the place to get insurance, whether it's subsidized or not. but many people will find that those new higher rates at the exchange without taxpayer assistance just don't work for them. the law was poorly written, it was poorly structured, it was crammed down the throats of the minority in both the house and the senate, and, in my view, health care providers and people who want insurance in the country in the way it was passed. there are many lessons to be learned from the affordable care act and one is never pass a piece of legislation this way. because a richmond court yesterday said, well, no, there are other places in the law, even though they surely said it was clear where the law refers to subsidizing tax -- subsidizing people who get insurance through the exchange, they surely knew that was clear. but now they say there are other places in the law that don't say that. why wasn't that debated on the floor of the house and the senate? it wasn't debated because one side decided they were going to do this exactly the way they would -- wanted to do it and they were going to do it by themselves. there was that brief moment where there were 60 democrats in the senate. they passed the current law that i fully believe nobody expected would be the health care law. you know, the way we used to pass laws in the congress, through the entire constitutional history of the country, was that the senate would pass a bill, the house would pass a bill and then you'd go to conference and figure out, one, how the two bills came together but also what in -- what didn't make as much sense when you had time to step back and look at it as it seemed to make in the heat of the floor debate. well, that didn't happen with this law. why didn't it happen with this law? because by the time the senate passed the bill and it was time for the house to deal with it, there were suddenly 59 senators of the democratic side of the majority in the senate. remember the scott brown election from massachusetts? everybody was surprised except maybe scott brown. but he was elected and there were no longer 60 votes in the senate, which is what it takes to do whatever you want to do. so apparent the message to the house of representatives, controlled by the democrats and speaker pelosi, was the only way we are going to pass a health care bill that goes anywhere near this floor is to pass the bill that the senate passed. there will be no conference. there will be no cleaning up this piece of legislation. there will be no discussion as to what we could do to actually make this work. we're going to pass this bill. and not a single republican in the senate voted for it and not a single republican in the house would vote for it. and what's the unintended consequence of that? how do you then go back and clean the bill up? you've decided, if you participate in that process, that your momentary power is so important that you're not going to involve anybody else's ideas in a way that got a single vote of the other side. one of the great lessons to learn here is if you're going to mess with everybody's health care and you're going to impact 16% or 18% of the entire econo economy, you'd better have buy-in from more than just one group of americans that represent one political party or one point of view. and so now we have this confusion that will go on until i assume the supreme court determines the difference in these two federal courts of appeals. but it will be months before that happens. it will be months before that happens and we'll see if taxpayers subsidize others getting their insurance or not. we'll see what happens to people who got a subsidy if the subsidy turns out to be one that was inappropriately given, and we'll see how we move forward on that. and then there's also this discussion going on, some of which we had on the floor here last week, of religious freedom as it relates to that law. there's a so-called accommodation for religious groups that don't believe in -- that they should have to pay for certain things. the little sisters of the poor, who, by the way, were listed on one advocacy group for the law as it's being applied, the little sisters of the poor were listed as one of the hundred dirty employers in america because they were one of the hundred church groups and others that tried to take this idea to court, that you could be forced to do things that violate your faith principles. now, if we've come to a point that the little sisters of the poor are one of the evil employers in america, we better think about how we got to this point. and actually just sotomayor gave the -- on her own -- the little sisters of the poor said, not only do we not want to do this, we don't agree with the so-called accommodation that if we'll sign a piece of paper that says we don't want to do this but our insurance company will, now what did they -- what did the little sisters of the poor think was wrong with that? what could possibly be wrong with that? all you're asked to do is sign a piece of paper you believe something is wrong but it's okay with you if somebody else paid for it? well, that's obviously not right. and justice sotomayor on her own gave the relief that the little sisters of the poor asked for but then only a few weeks later she's outraged when the rest of the court gives the exact same relief to wheaton college. wheaton college, a christian college near chicago. the president's home state. a long-term commitment to their faith principles. they basically say, well, just like the little sisters of the poor, we don't believe this is right and we don't want to sign a piece of paper that says we think it's wrong but it's okay with us if somebody else pays for it. and then a story i just read today was the constant concern that the health care plan narrows your ability to get health care because it restricts the networks that you can go to. in at least one state, half of the hospitals in the state don't participate in the -- in anything you can get access to through the affordable care act as an individual or a family. so you have to drive by your old hospital, drive by your old doctor's office to get to a doctor or hospital that may or may not see you. i think the hospital has to see you. i don't think the doctor does. but you have to drive by -- we just had this big discussion. i had the great opportunity to speak at the national convention of the veterans of foreign wars on monday and obviously, like everybody else there, i had on my mind what was happening with the veterans administration. at the same time we're talking about how to give veterans more choices, we're talking about how to give everybody else fewer choices. networks -- there was a great quote. i said, networks help contain costs. well, of course they do. if you can't get to see the doctor or its un -- it's unconvenient to go to the hospital, of course -- it's inconvenient to go to the hospital, of course it contains costs. and then the bill on the floor this week about economic opportunity, economic advancement, one of the great attacks on that has been the attack on the 40-hour work week. and what happened to the 40-hour work week for many, many people working in the country? the federal government for the first time ever said well, you have to provide insurance and this is what it has to look like whether you can afford it as an employer or not, whether your employees want to take it or n not. you have to provide insurance. this is what it's supposed to look like for everybody that works 30 hours or more. and so all of a sudden, government actions have consequences no matter what the administration might think about e.p.a. rules on water, e.p.a. rules on the utility bill, h.h.s. rules on health care -- actions have consequences and lots of people that used to work 40 hours now may be working 50 hours but they're doing it at two different jobs. neither of which have benefits. the 40-hour job that in month cases than not had benefits that both the employer and the employee thought were good -- 85% of everybody that got insurance at work, health insurance at work, thought it was good, thought it met their needs, 85%. and most people had insurance at work. but now many people go to work without insurance because the only people at the place they go to work that get insurance are the managers or the longtime employees or the people who work more than 30 hours. the chances to advance if you're in a part-time job are a lot less than the chances to advance if you're in a full-time job. i just suggest, madam president, if we were really trying to get people to work here this week instead of make political points, we would be talking about the 40-hour workweek. we would be talking about the manufacturers -- advanced manufacturing bill that the senator from ohio, mr. brown, and i have that others are very interested in, and it's a bipartisan interest. we would be talking about the -- the bridge act that allows more infrastructure building that senator warner and i have, another bipartisan piece of legislation. we would be talking about the -- the build america act that helps state and local government with infrastructure by allowing companies, the very companies apparently that are being talked about this week in a piece of legislation everybody knows can't pass and has no bipartisan support, talking about companies that would be allowed to bring profits from -- that they have made overseas, they have paid taxes on overseas, but they would be allowed to bring those profits here in a way that would encourage state and local governments to expand their infrastructure, maintain their infrastructure, make their sewer system, their water system, their road and bridge system all work better. the unintended consequences of not thinking through what is the constitutional responsibility of the house and senate are significant. we need to understand the impact of what we do and the impact of what we fail to do. failing to have a health care system that meets people's needs, failing to have a 40-hour workweek that we figure out how to encourage rather than discourage, failing to get people into that first job is a failure that lasts for a long time. if you don't advance in your 20's at work like you should, when you get to be 30, somebody else in a better economy in their 20's is likely to pass you because the opportunity you have was disrupted by circumstances the government couldn't control or in many cases today circumstances the government could control and works to make and actually works in a way that make those circumstances worse, not better. and so, madam president, i'd like to see us do the kinds of things that get people to work, talk about the kinds of legislation that's bipartisan, that could pass both houses of congress. there is plenty of it out there. i continue to hope that we figure out how to get to it. i would yield the floor. if there is nobody prepared to speak, i would suggest there is an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i would ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. in a few minutes, we're going to have the opportunity to make it clear to the american people that we get it, that we understand that we need to be bringing jobs home to america, that it's not acceptable we have lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs, and in fact as we see more companies coming back to the united states, we need to reward them. we need to say we're open for business, come on back and we're going to make sure we have a tax code that supports those decisions. the bring jobs home act which senator walsh is leading and i want to commend him. i know he has talked to me about how important that is to his state of montana. it certainly is to my state of michigan as well. we have this opportunity through senator walsh's bring jobs home act to show that we're going to begin the process of making our tax system work for american workers, american businesses and communities. so we have a vote in a minute on whether or not to proceed to this bill. it's not the final vote. the question is, is this an important enough topic that we would actually proceed to the bill? that's the question. because there has been objection to just proceeding, as we know, we have to get 60 votes, a supermajority to proceed. i would hope that this is something that we would see 100 people, everybody in the united states senate agree that yes, we should be debating this issue of how we bring jobs home to america. i can't imagine a more critical issue for everyone that we represent. and it's very simple. this bill is very simple. first of all, if you are packing up and leaving this country, you shouldn't be able to write off the costs. the worker that helps pack the equipment that's going to be going overseas shouldn't be paying the bill through the tax code. the community that sees the factory empty once the business leaves shouldn't be paying through the tax code for the costs of the move. so this bill says no more write-offs if you're leaving the country. on the other hand, if you want to bring jobs home, you can write off those costs. our tax code will allow you to take that as a business expense to bring jobs home, and because we think it's so important, we'll add another 20% tax credit on top of it. so very simply, if you want to come home, we're all in. we want to support you doing that. we congratulate those businesses who are making the right business decision right now for a lot of good reasons -- low energy costs, high-skilled work force, a lot of reasons why folks are coming home. but if you want to leave, you're on your own. that's what this bill is all about. and i hope everyone will vote to proceed to the bring jobs home act. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. walsh: i rise today regarding an issue that is crucial to our country's economic future. in recent decades, we have seen too many multinational corporations close factories in the united states while at the same time opening new plants in other countries, getting rid of american jobs and creating jobs overseas. it's wrong and it strikes the heart of american competitiveness. too many big businesses are engaged in this harmful race to the bottom. they are moving their business operations out of america to countries with lower wages and fewer worker protections, and they are costing americans jobs. businesses make decisions in order to make profits, which is usually good for jobs and our economy, but it is outrageous that american workers are forced to subsidize decisions that send american jobs overseas. under our current tax code, corporations can claim a deduction for expenses associated with closing operations in the united states and moving them overseas. this is a fundamentally wrong policy that encourages multinational corporations to send jobs abroad. i believe that leveling the playing field for american workers should be a nonpartisan issue, and that is why i have sponsored the bring jobs home act. i'd like to thank my fellow sponsor, senator stabenow, for your tireless effort and work on behalf of american workers. you are respected around the country for your service and what you are doing. the bring jobs home act is a straightforward bill. first, companies will no longer be able to claim a tax deduction for the cost of moving jobs overseas. this just makes sense. i imagine most americans would be shocked to learn that multinational corporations are allowed to claim such a tax break. i'm also sure that most small business owners who can't take advantage of this tax break would also be outraged. taxpayers should not be asked to continue to foot the bill for the costs associated with shutting down factories in the united states in order to move jobs to countries like china or mexico. second, the bring jobs home act will create a new 20% tax credit for companies that bring jobs back to the united states, and it's time we set new priorities for american job creation. we should be doing everything we possibly can to encourage job growth and creation here in the united states. in montana where i'm from, montanans believe in american workers and the power of american industry and innovation. we believe that american workers are essential to america's economy, but they need and deserve a level playing field. since the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, many of our constituents have been trapped in a vicious cycle of instability and uncertainty that comes with long-term unemployment. we want to see more job opportunities for americans. it is our responsibility as leaders to bring our jobs back home. so today i urge my colleagues to stand with american workers and vote for this bill. there are companies out there right now that are considering bringing businesses and activities back to the united states, and we must do everything we possibly can to help those companies create jobs and grow our american economy right here at home. in montana, people take pride in producing quality products here at home. i recently toured a company in manhattan, montana, blackhawk that manufactures top of the line outdoor gear and sporting goods for sportsmen, women, military and law enforcement. it's an example of american ingenuity put be montanans to work on american soil. it's time for congress to show true leadership and put partisan politics aside, so today i call on my colleagues to join me in supporting bringing american jobs back to america. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. 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 the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 453, s. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for business to bring jobs back to america shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 93 and the nays are 7. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn, have voted in the affirmative, and the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, federal labor relations authority, julia akins clark of maryland to be general counsel. department of state, andrew h.schapiro of illinois to be ambassador of the united states to the czech republic. department of energy, madelyn r. creedon, national nuclear security administration. the presiding officer: there will be now two minutes of debate prior to the vote on the clark nomination. who yields time? mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. hurricane katrina hoon i ask consent t--mrs. shaheen: i ask s consent to yield back all time. the presiding officer: without objection. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. there will be now two minutes of debate prior to the vote on the schapiro nomination. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i i ask unanimous consent to yield back all tievment. the presiding officer: without objection. qurequest isrequest is on the so nomination. all knows in favor aye say aye. those opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have t the ayes do have it. the nomination is qualified. there will now be two minutes of debate rier to the creedon nomination. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to yield back all tievment. the presiding officer: without objection. question is on the creedon nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have t the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: i'm pleased that we were able today to put aside partisan politics and vote for what was right for the american people, and i hope my colleagues will also vote for the final bill here. we must protect american jobs and eliminate tax loopholes for corporations that move jobs overseas. creating and supporting well-paying american jobs should be our top priority. the debate about jobs in america and in new mexico is not about politics; it is about people. this past weekend i visited with some new mexicans who were facing a very real and personal challenge about their future and their livelihood. in queston, new mexico, minors have worked for nearly a century but at that mine is now closing less than two weeks from today. 300 people will lose their jobs. for the workers, for their families, for local businesses, it's a hard time with tough questions and uncertain answers. just this past sunday, i met with the minors to talk with them and most important to listen about what has happened in questa. and the future of a great community -- this is about more than chevron corporation's decision to close the mine. it's about workers who feel they were kept in the dark, who worry that help will be too little and too late. my office is working closely with the community for trade adjustment assistance to get the training and help they will need. folks, they are struggling, but they are committed to mapping out a few future for questa, a post-mining economy. families have lived and worked in questa for generations. they know hard work and grit and determination. no one needs to tell them about that. they helped build our country. they support their community. they follow the rules. they ask for one thing in return: a fair chance. that's all, just a fair chance. and let's be clear. for the supreme court, for those who seem to be confused on this point, these miners are people. their families are people. corporations are not people. supesuper pacs buying our elect, they are not people. they are special interests with a lot of money and a lot of demands, like special tax brea breaks, tax breaks that make no sense for real people with real problems and looking for real jobs. we need to be doing all we can to create jobs, to keep building our economy. the bring jobs home act would help. for a tax policy that brings jobs home, not one that rewards sending them away. almost 2.5 million jobs are gone over the past ten years, shipped overseas and paid for by the american taxpayers, by families like those in questa footing the bill. the bring jobs home act would do two important things: one, end the tax loophole for outsourcing jobs. if corporations want to send a job overseas, they can do so, but at their own expense, not at the expense of the american taxpayers. two, create the right incentives, giving a tax credit for companies that bring jobs back home. this is a pretty simple idea. let's reward what helps and stop rewarding what doesn't. the bring jobs home act would do something else, too. for the middle class in this country, for workers and families, it will say, we hear you; your voice matters, too, and all the super pac dollars can't change that. we can create jobs right here at home. we can keep growing our economy and help communities with a tax policy that builds them up and invests in the future. that is something to fight for. that is the kind of fairness that folks want and deserve in questa, in citizens united, and in our country -- in my state, and in our country. the mine will close in questa. we can't close that. we can't bring it back. some folks say it feels like a death. the day that door closes, it almost feels like a funeral, like a part of them dies with the mine, and i'm sure it does. it has been the lifeblood of the community for so many years and for so many generations of families. but folks there said something else, too. when bad things happen, friends and family show up to do what they can to help. we need to start showing up for the american worker, for the middle class, for towns all across our nation where the factory closed, where the jobs went away, the bring jobs home act is a start to create jobs, to build our economies here at home, and to help communities in a world that is changing awfully fast. this is a step in the right direction, and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield the floor, madam president. mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i want to thank my colleague from new mexico for his compelling remarks about the importance of passing the bring jobs home act. i'm here to echo the need to pass this critical legislation, and i'm certain will ly pleasedt we had such a strong vote to end debate on this legislation. i hope we can now come to some agreement and get the same kind of support for moving the bill forward. i'm an original cosponsor of this commonsense bill. as senator udall has said, this legislation would end incentives for companies to send american jobs overseas, and it would instead encourage companies to move jobs back to the united states. believe it or not, when a company moves jobs offshore, it can write off those expenses on its taxes. that just doesn't make sense. the bring jobs home act would stop forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for companies when they ship jobs overseas. in addition, to encourage companies to move production back to the united states, the bill provides a tax credit for the costs aesht 10ed with -- associated with bringing jobs back home. so, not only is this legislation the right thing to do, but it also comes at a critical time as our economy struggles to recover. in new hampshire and across the country, as senator udall pointed out, in new mexico with the closing of the mine in that community, we're still feeling the effects of the great recession. millions of americans lost their jobs, and too many middle-class families are still struggling to make ends meet. but, sadly, even before the recession hit, the american middle class was finding it heart to pay their bills, to pay their mortgage, to find the good jobs that allowed this emto have -- allowed them to have opportunities. a big reason for that was the loss of so many good-paying american jobs that supported the middle class. too many of those jobs were shipped overseas. over the last decade, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas, and those 2.4 million families supported by those jobs had to find other ways to support themselves. and often they were in jobs that don't pay as well. well, it doesn't have to be this way. in fact, many companies are now looking to move jobs back to the united states, as production costs rise overseas. these companies want the advantages provided by our american workers, the most productive workers in the world, and the ease of doing business in the united states. i've heard from cephal companies that have -- from several companies that have already moved jobs back to the united states, and there are many more who are hoping to bring jobs back home, if we have the right policies in place. so let me give you an example. last year i met wit with doug c, the c.e.o. of new england footwear. when you think footwear manufacturing or shoe factory jobs, you don't think of the united states anymore, because while there are still some very good companies that manufacture footwear here, most of those jobs were sent offshore a long time ago. i know that story very well because my father was in shoe manufacturing. the whole time that i was growing up, i watched him struggle with the loss of those shoe manufacturing jobs being sent overseas and imports coming in to take the place of shoes made here in america and the jobs that workers here in america held. today about 99% of shoes stoled sold in the united states are made abroad. but new england footwear executives, who have years of experience in the shoe industry, are looking to bring those jobs back home, back to new hampshire. the company currently manufactures in china, but as costs rise there, doug believes he can bring higher-paying jobs to the united states, thanks to innovative technology that reduces manufacturing costs. and new england footwear isn't alone. a boston consulting group survey from last september showed that more than half of large u.s.-based manufacturers are planning or considering right now bringing production lines back to the united states from china. that's up 17% from just two years ago -- 17%. that's a big increase, a lot of jobs. the boston consulting group projected that production re-shored from china and higher exports due to improved u.s. competitiveness in manufacturing could create 2.5 million to 5 million american factory and related service jobs by 2020. so we could replace by 2020 more than the jobs that we've lost in the last decade, and that's the kind of behavior we should be encouraging. that's exactly what the bill before us does. and we know it will work because a 2012m.i.t. forum on supply chain management found bringing tax credits back to the united states would be one of the most effective ways to accelerate that process, along with other commonsense measures like enacting tax reform, which we all agree we've got to do, providing r&d incentives, ensuring a highly educated workforce and improving american infrastructure. again, all challenges that i think the majority of us in this body understand have to be done. so i'm very glad the senate moved to this bill because our priority in washington must be creating jobs and restoring the american middle class. over the past few decades too many americans have seen their jobs disappear or their incomes fall. the bring jobs home act is an opportunity to support those families by creating good-paying jobs here in the united states and by helping our economy regain its competitive edge. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. senator shaheen i ask -- mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. i have 13 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Arkansas , United States , Montana , New Hampshire , China , Wheaton College , Illinois , Boston , Massachusetts , New Mexico , Oregon , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mexico , Maryland , Ohio , Czech Republic , Switzerland , Chicago , Montanans , Americans , America , New Mexicans , American , Julia Akins Clark , Katrina Hoon , Doug Clark , Mel Redman , Madelyn R Creedon , Scott Brown ,