XXXX Blocked $26.1 Billion In Medicaid And Education Funding For States That Was Paid For By Closing Foreign Tax Loopholes. In August 2010, XXXX voted against a Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further Murray, D-Wash., substitute amendment no. 4575 that would provide $16.1 billion to extend increased Medicaid assistance to states and $10 billion in education funding for states. The cost of the programs would be offset by changing foreign tax provisions, ending increased food stamp benefits beginning in April 2014 and rescinding previously enacted spending. [Vote 228, 8/5/10]  XXXX Voted Against $26.1 Billion In Medicaid And Education Funding For States. In August 2010, XXXX voted against a Murray, D-Wash., motion to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions with respect to the Gregg, R-N.H., point of order against the Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further Murray substitute amendment no. 4575 that would provide $16.1 billion to extend increased Medicaid assistance to states and $10 billion in education funding for states. [Vote 225, 8/4/10]  XXXX Voted Against $26.1 Billion In Medicaid and Education Funding For States. In August 2010, XXXX voted against a motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further Murray, D-Wash., substitute amendment no. 4575 that would provide $16.1 billion to extend increased Medicaid assistance to states and $10 billion in education funding for states. [Vote 224, 8/4/10] XXXX Voted to Keep Tax Incentives for Offshore Companies. In 2005, XXXX voted against an amendment that would repeal tax incentives for domestic companies that move their manufacturing plants to offshore locations and use the resulting revenue to reduce the federal deficit and debt by $3.2 billion from 2006 to 2010. [Vote 63, 3/17/05] XXXX Voted Against Prohibiting Federal Tax Dollars From Being Used on Foreign Companies. In 2004, XXXX voted against an amendment to prohibit a federal government contract, including state contracts with any federal funding, from being performed outside the United States. “You may be able to do that with your own money,” argued sponsor Chris Dodd “The question is, should you be able to do that with the taxpayers’ money?” [Vote 32, 3/4/04; Washington Post, 3/5/04]  “The provision as rewritten would impose a federal contract ban only if the Commerce Department certifies that no American jobs would be lost or economic harm would result from it. The legislation also includes a broad national security exemption for projects handled by the departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security, and by the intelligence agencies. Also, some 27 nations, including members of the European Union and Japan, would still be able to win U.S. federal contracts.” [CQ Today, 3/3/04] XXXX Voted in Favor of Shipping American Jobs Overseas. In 2004, XXXX voted against prohibiting American tax dollars from being used to ship jobs outside the country. The amendment XXXX voted against would have: limited the ability of civilian agencies to award contracts to companies that would use offshore workers, prohibited the privatization of jobs when contractors would take the work overseas, and require states to certify that they will not use federal funds for services performed outside the United States, eliminated tax advantages for companies that move factories overseas to make goods that are shipped back to the U.S. market, and prohibited companies from deferring taxes on income earned from these “runaway” manufacturing plants. [Vote 41, 3/11/04]  This was an amendment “that would have raised taxes on U.S. companies that use overseas plants as a platform to export into the United States.” [National Journal’s CongressDaily, 05/06/04]  It would have repealed a “tax subsidy called deferral…for those U.S. companies that move their operation to a foreign subsidiary, produce the same product, and ship the product back into this country.” According to estimates by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, “…this deferral benefit for companies that move overseas to produce the same product and ship it back into our marketplace in the U.S. is over $6 billion in 10 years.” As Senator Byron Dorgan said, “it is unfair to U.S. domestic companies to compete 227