On the recordJuly 14, 2015
by way of response, I understand what my colleague from Tennessee just mentioned as it relates to the objection to the so-called pay-for. I don't agree, obviously, for a couple of reasons. No. 1 is I would hope that corporations that get the benefit of retaining a lot of operations in the United States and then seek to avoid taxes by so-called inversion would understand, I believe, the duty they have to this country. They benefit from our workers, our infrastructure. They benefit in so many ways. I would hope those companies would understand and Senators here would agree with the notion that they should undertake the duty to pay their fair share. I understand there is a debate about that. I understand there is an objection, but I would hope at some point we can get to the resolution of this basic question: Are we going to require companies to do more if they seek to engage in a tax-avoidance scheme by a so-called inversion? But I respect what my colleague said, and we will try to move forward constructively.
