Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of CW5 Bernard Satterfield. On July 1, 2013, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Satterfield will retire after 40 years of distinguished service to the U.S. Army. With his decades of service and dedication to our country, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Satterfield has earned our deepest gratitude and respect.

In September 1973, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Satterfield entered active duty service after completing basic combat training at Fort Jackson, SC. In 1984, he was appointed to the Warrant Officer Corps. In 2010, he became the regimental chief officer--the highest ranking warrant officer--of the U.S. Army's Ordnance Corps. Chief Satterfield served in multiple overseas tours and deployments to Germany, Panama, South Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and numerous locations across the United States. His service earned him numerous military awards and decorations, including the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star, for his faithful service and contribution to the Army's mission.

In retirement, I am confident that Chief Satterfield will continue to serve our Nation. On behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the U.S. Senate, I am proud to thank Chief Satterfield, his wife Deirdre, and their son Steven, for four decades of honorable service to our Nation. I wish him and his family the very best in retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Plymouth, NH--a town in Grafton County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this historic event.

Plymouth was built at the convergence of the Pemigewasset and Baker rivers amid the beautiful White Mountains.

Plymouth was granted a charter by Gov. Benning Wentworth in 1763 and incorporated later that same year. It is named after the original Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts.

The population has grown to include over 7,000 residents. The patriotism and commitment of the people of Plymouth is reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation.

Some of Plymouth's most notable residents include U.S. Senator and Congressman Henry W. Blair, Pulitzer Prize-winning authors Robert Frost and John Cheever, as well as Harl Pease. Mr. Pease was a World War II pilot and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

New Hampshire native, and then attorney, Daniel Webster, who went on to become one of the Senate's great orators, tried and lost his first criminal case in the Plymouth Courthouse.

Based in Plymouth, the Draper and Maynard Sporting Goods Company sold directly to the Boston Red Sox. Many early players would make the journey to Plymouth and select their equipment for the upcoming season.

Plymouth Normal School was founded in 1871 and became the State's first teachers college. This institution would subsequently become the Plymouth Teachers College, Plymouth State College, and is known today as Plymouth State University.

Plymouth is a place that has contributed much to the life and spirit of the State of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Plymouth as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Warren, NH--a town in Grafton County that is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its founding. I am proud to join citizens across the Granite State in recognizing this historic event. This area, drained by the Baker River and built in the shadow of Mount Moosilauke, exemplifies the beauty of the surrounding White Mountain National Forest.

Warren was granted a charter by Governor Benning Wentworth in 1763 and incorporated by Governor John Wentworth in 1770. The town derives its name from British Admiral Sir Peter Warren and was first settled by Joseph Patch and John Page.

Since that time, the population has grown to include over 900 residents. The patriotism and commitment of the people of Warren are reflected in part by their service in most of America's major conflicts, with over 60 serving in World War II alone.

Warren's most notable landmark is a Redstone Ballistic Missile, dedicated in honor of Warren's favorite son, Senator Norris Cotton. Senator Cotton represented New Hampshire in Washington, D.C., for almost 30 years, including 8 years as a Congressman and over 20 as a Senator. The Federal building in Manchester and the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Hospital, both bear his name.

Another notable resident of Warren was Ira Morse. Mr. Morse was a successful shoe retailer who traveled the world hunting big-game and collecting cultural artifacts. In 1928, Ira Morse opened his collection to the public and established the Morse Museum.

Located in the village of Glencliff is the historic Glencliff Home. This facility first provided relief and treatment for urban workers suffering from breathing impairment. Although its mission has changed, the home is still in operation and is currently administered by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.

Warren is a place that has contributed much to the life and spirit of the State of New Hampshire. I am pleased to extend my warm regards to the people of Warren as they celebrate the town's 250th anniversary.

I thank my colleague from South Carolina and very much thank my colleague from Arizona for, obviously, their leadership on this issue.

I have great confidence in our criminal justice system, having both defended and tried criminal cases in that system. The purpose of that system, of course, is to bring people to justice. There is no question in this case, in light of what Boston has gone through--and I know the Chair knows all too well the crimes that were committed and the acts of terrorism committed--that we need to make sure the criminal justice system holds that individual, the terrorist who survived, accountable in the Federal criminal system.

I am confident, based not only on what we have seen with video evidence but the great work done by our law enforcement officials, both at the local level in Boston, along with the cooperation of our Federal agencies--they did phenomenal work--that evidence will be used against this terrorist in the Federal court system and he will be found guilty. In fact, with the overwhelming evidence, this is not a difficult case to prosecute, and we should hold him fully accountable.

But our criminal justice system, which I have great respect for, was not set up to gather intelligence to protect our Nation. In fact, protections such as the right against self-incrimination, when an individual is given their Miranda rights, that is intended to tell people they have the right to a lawyer, they have the right to remain silent so they can't be coerced into confessing to something and then having that confession used to convict them later in a court of law, that doctrine was not intended to stop this Nation from gathering intelligence, to make sure when we have a terrorist attack, such as what occurred in Boston, which was so horrific--and let me say my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of those terrorist attacks-- we cannot in the national security context hold that individual for a sufficient period while still being respectful of his constitutional right--which we can be--and gather intelligence.

If we cannot do that, what are we saying about our Nation? What are we saying here? Let us go back to 9/11.

What if we had captured one of those individuals before the second plane hit the second tower or before the plane went down in Pennsylvania. Are you telling me we couldn't hold them for a longer period of time?

Our law enforcement officers relied on what is called the public safety exception to Miranda in this case with the Boston terrorist, but that exception expired very quickly. It expired so quickly that yesterday, while our law enforcement spoke with him, by noon he was being advised by a Federal court judge he had the right to remain silent. Is that enough time to find out whether he has any ties to any foreign terrorist organizations, given that his brother traveled to Dagestan, with ties to Chechnya--with known ties in those areas of the world to al-Qaida? Is that enough time to know whether somebody else or some other organization was funding them or there are other attacks that America can expect? Because that was a very brief period of time, and that is what we are talking about--respecting our values in the criminal justice system but also protecting our Nation.

In this instance, this individual was very quickly advised that he had the right to remain silent. When he came to consciousness, it was a matter of hours that were given to gather all this information. Is that enough, given what happened in Boston, to make sure we know everything this individual knows to protect this Nation from future attacks, if he has ties to al-Qaida or some other foreign terrorist group? That is a very limited time.

What we are saying is, yes, try him in Federal court, and he is entitled to due process in that system as well. But he should have been held initially to make sure we have the maximum information in our national security system to protect our Nation.

Is America the battlefield? We all remember too well 9/11. Unfortunately, the goal is to come to America, and we have to acknowledge we are at war with radical Islamic jihadists who are seeking to kill us--not for anything we

have done but for what we believe in and for what we stand.

I want to show an individual whose name is Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al- Awlaki was an American citizen, just like this individual who committed the terrorist attack in Boston whom we are holding right now. This American citizen became an influential leader in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, advocated for violent Jihad against the United States, used the Internet to recruit followers and inspire attacks, and was linked to dozens of terrorist investigations in our country and with our allies. He was in Yemen, and on September 30, 2011, our administration took him out with a drone strike, and I applaud them for that.

But if Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen under the constructs we are under right now, came to the United States of America and was involved in an attack against our country--we can take him out with a drone strike if he is in Yemen. But if he actually gets to the United States of America to carry out the attacks he wanted to as a terrorist and we capture him here, we have to give him Miranda? No. We need to be able to hold individuals such as he, and anyone who is seeking to commit a terrorist attack against our country, in the national intelligence context, to find out what they know to make sure we can disrupt these terrorist networks around the world. That is what we are talking about, and we can do both within our values.

To those who have been writing inaccurate pieces about this, we understand that if someone is an American citizen, they cannot be tried in a military commission; they can only be tried in a Federal court. And we will do that here. If we had caught him, we would have tried him too. But before we do that, we had better know what he knows about the terrorist network to be able to know whom he is involved with and to prevent future attacks on this country because people like him--and unfortunately what we saw in Boston--do want to come here to attack us. We have to be in a position to protect this country.

What concerns me most of all is the construct that this administration has put together. Here we have a construct where even foreigners who are terrorists--not American citizens--are being brought into our civilian system and are being advised of their Miranda rights without giving the maximum opportunity to gather intelligence.

This is a picture of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law sitting next to Osama bin Laden, Abu Ghaith, the day after our country was attacked on September 11. Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Abu Ghaith, was captured overseas. He spent time in Iran. Instead of being brought to Guantanamo or held for a lengthy period to be interrogated, he was brought right to a Federal court in New York City to be tried there.

This is the construct this administration is using, where they are not treating this like we are at war even with foreign terrorists. Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, not held as an enemy combatant, tried-- just like this individual who was captured committing the terrorist attacks against us in Boston--in the Federal civilian court system.

We are at war, ladies and gentlemen, and we owe it to our Nation to protect our country. The only way we can do that is when we capture individuals who are foreigners who are members of al-Qaida or when we capture individuals who are American citizens who commit terrorist attacks against this country--who may or may not have ties to foreign organizations--we had better find out. If they do, we need to understand what they know to protect our Nation and then hold them accountable, as we will in this case, and make sure they never see the light of day. I hope in this case we seek the death penalty for what that suspect in Boston did in terrorizing those who were there at the Boston Marathon on such a wonderful day.

I would say to the Senator from South Carolina, I don't know how that isn't possible in this case. Any defense lawyer--as they should--to defend their client, there is no way they will allow that individual who committed the terrorist attack in Boston to speak to one investigator now, if we get additional information or we have followup questions, without taking the death penalty off the table.

That is the defense lawyer's job. I respect them for that. But it puts our Nation in an awkward position to have to negotiate with a defense lawyer when we have questions for someone who has committed a terrorist attack against our Nation.

Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to oppose the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. I, of course, would like to, I think properly, name it the Internet Tax Collection Act because that is what it is. I strongly oppose this bill which has very serious flaws to it and very serious ramifications for not only businesses in my State, online businesses where we have seen great growth, but also online businesses across this Nation.

I strongly disagree with the decision to fast-track this bill, to skip the regular markup process of the Finance Committee. Both the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, had opposed going to this bill without the committee doing its work.

Why? There are a number of concerns that have been raised about this bill by Members on both sides of the aisle. At a very minimum, we believe these concerns warrant a thorough vetting through the regular order. That is why I, along with Senators Wyden, Tester, Shaheen, Rubio, Lee, and Cruz wrote a letter to the majority leader expressing these concerns, asking again for regular order for this bill. But here we are. Cloture was invoked and I suspect the

supporters of this bill certainly do not want to go through the markup process so here we are again without regular order.

This bill is wrong for a great area of growth for our country, which is online businesses. Small business owners get hit the worst under this bill. Small business owners from my State of New Hampshire have told me--and large businesses from my State of New Hampshire that do business online have told me--this legislation would make it harder for them to do business. During the recent Senate work period, I held two roundtable discussions in New Hampshire, one in Manchester and one in Portsmouth. It was a great opportunity to hear directly from those on the ground what the implications of this bill will be to business owners in my State. I would like to share a sampling of the feedback from businesses in New Hampshire about this bill.

Russ Gaitskill, who is the president and CEO of Garnet Hill, in Franconia, NH: ``It's going to be a nightmare.''

He sent to my office an example of what he would have to do. Understand what this will make online businesses have to do in this country. They now become the tax collectors for other States, even though they do not rely on the services in those States, they do not use the roads in those States, they don't get to vote for the Representatives in those States. Taxation without representation, that is what this bill is about. They now have to collect for the rest of the Nation's 9,600 tax jurisdictions of different not only State sales taxes but local and county sales taxes.

I want to use one example of what this is like and what an administrative nightmare this is for businesses. This is 1 page of a 40-page sales tax manual that is an example of what any online business across the Nation could have to face. In New Hampshire, if there is a customer from Illinois who chooses to buy from an online business in New Hampshire--here we are. If the person lives in Grand Prairie, it is a 6.5-percent rate. But if the person is from Colona or Collison, a 6.5-percent rate or if you live in Dow, it is a 7-percent rate.

There are 9,600 different tax jurisdictions across this Nation and the people pushing this bill, the proponents, say: Oh, no problem for these businesses. Just use software. Every business has this software. It is going to be easy as pie.

So when Dow changes their tax rate half a percent, the whole program changes. Yes, that burden is put on the business. Talk about an administrative nightmare. Do you know why. Because States are in a position where they want to use that as a cash grab to make other States and online businesses do their work of tax collecting for them instead of them doing it themselves. I cannot believe my colleagues are going to go along with this and those who are pushing it.

I think it is especially odd there are Republicans who want to create this kind of complicated tax mess. I hear from my colleagues on this side of the aisle all the time about how we are going to cut through regulations, we are going to make it easier for businesses. A lot of my colleagues on the Republican end are pushing this notion that a business--oh, just let them purchase some software and then let them try to collect for almost 9,600 tax jurisdictions in the Nation. What could possibly go wrong for an online business? Many of them, smaller businesses in this country, are trying to thrive, trying to grow through a difficult time in our country.

I also heard from E&R Laundry and Dry Cleaners, a small business founded in 1921 in Manchester. About 70 percent of E&R's sales are now Internet based. The company's president said he would not have the resources to calculate, collect, and deliver sales taxes for thousands of jurisdictions across the country.

A bakery in my hometown of Nashua echoed that sentiment. Susan Lozier Roberts of Frederick's Pastries--and anybody who has been there, yum. I can understand why people across the country would want to get some Frederick's pastries. Susan said it would create mass confusion, keeping up with all the individual State tax codes.

I heard the same from one of the most prominent maple sugar producers in the State. In New Hampshire, we are a State that prides itself on its maple sugar products. Peter Thomson--his father was the late Gov. Mel Thomson, a wonderful figure in the history of our State--said it would be a burden we just couldn't afford.

Ken Smith, the owner of Maine-ly New Hampshire, said: I physically don't have the manpower or the hours to be able to handle something like this.

Jenn Coffey, another business owner, said: If I had to become a tax collector on top of what I am already trying to do as a startup--we all know how hard it is so start your own business, by the way--she said: I would be out of business.

I also heard widespread concerns about the threat from faraway audits that this legislation would bring. That is the poster board I had up there, with all these tax rates. In every single one of those jurisdictions, if we divide it by county or we divide it by State, when a business in another State, in New Hampshire, for example--if they are selling to a customer in Illinois, they can then, if their computer program that everyone is saying is so easy doesn't calculate it right, they can be hauled in for an audit in another State where they do not have any physical presence. What do they do? They have to get a lawyer in another State. They have to deal in a court system in another State or with auditors with a department of revenue. Whom do they deal with? Talk about administrative nightmare, to be dragged into another State for potential audits, to have to hire lawyers in other States--what an administrative mess this bill will create.

It is truly shocking to think that people actually want to say this somehow is going to level the playing field or make it more fair, when it puts this great burden on businesses.

Travis Adams, with whaddy.com, based in Nashua, said: One tax audit from another State or jurisdiction would completely crush us.

Ben Baker, an online retailer in Barrington, said: Small businesses like mine just can't handle that kind of accounting burden. If I have to hire a bookkeeper or pay my current offsite accountants significantly more per month to track all this, you can bet my plans to expand my business in the next 6 months are a lot less likely.

Paul Ford, an online dealer in Portsmouth, perhaps summed it best when he said: The last thing we need is legislation like this.

I would also like to mention a comment from Joel Maloy, a friend of mine, a great business owner in New Hampshire, president of Polaris Direct. He said: This is not about making Main Street more competitive. It is about passing new taxes on to consumers. That is consistent with what other business owners have told me from across New Hampshire, and I have certainly also heard it from businesses across the Nation. They know this is not about competitiveness. It is about helping States get more money to spend on programs they cannot afford.

That is what the Wall Street Journal said this week. The paper called the Marketplace Fairness Act an online revenue raid. They said this is a bill--of course, do you know who is pushing this bill? Big business, big retail business. Do you know what it does, according to the Wall Street Journal--and I fully agree with them on this--``. . . big business and big government are uniting to pursue their mutual interest in sticking it to the little guy.''

``[B]ig business and big government are uniting to pursue their mutual interest in sticking it to the little guy.'' Haven't we had enough of that in our Nation? The paper concluded that ``the new revenues will merely fund larger government.''

Some of my conservative colleagues have tried to justify their support for this big government bill on the notion that their States will be able to reduce their income or sales tax. I think we all understand there is no requirement in this bill that States have to reduce some other tax burden if they collect taxes in this way. This is just about spending more money.

Let's talk about the Constitution. By imposing collection requirements on businesses that have no physical presence outside their home State, I also fear this is going to trample on existing State sovereignty. Under current Supreme Court precedent, in the absence of an actual sufficient nexus, a State cannot reach beyond its borders

to compel out-of-State Internet vendors to collect taxes on a particular transaction. That is the Quill decision.

By usurping and changing the standard, it would undermine an important limitation in the commerce clause, the nexus requirement. So now your nexus with a State is a click; instead of a physical presence in a State. If an online business in New Hampshire has to collect and remit sales taxes for online customers from Massachusetts, what is to prevent Congress from later expanding the commerce clause even further to require New Hampshire brick-and-mortar businesses to collect the Massachusetts tax, because Massachusetts has already tried to do this to New Hampshire. In fact, when I was attorney general of the State, we brought a case to the Massachusetts Supreme Court because there were customers from Massachusetts who came over to buy some tires in New Hampshire and the Massachusetts DRA tried to get New Hampshire businesses to collect that tax.

That is exactly what we are doing with this bill. It actually places an unfair burden on online businesses versus brick-and-mortar businesses that are in that situation that now do not have to collect that. But I worry that will be the next step for businesses in my State of New Hampshire and other States across this Nation that do not have a sales tax.

What about stores that sell through catalogs. Their customers are frequently older and less likely to have transportation or be online. Will catalog vendors also have to collect and remit State sales taxes?

Finally, what about other unintended consequences on consumers, retirees, and investors? That is the type of information we would have talked about in a committee hearing that we did not have on this bill before the Finance Committee. There was a hearing, but there was no markup. A markup is when we try to improve and deal with unintended consequences to a bill.

Could this bill open the door to taxes on financial services or transaction taxes? Some of the financial organizations have raised that issue. In my home State of New Hampshire, it is a matter of pride that we do not have a sales tax, and this bill tramples on that choice for the State of New Hampshire. That is because we know it gives our retailers, yes, an advantage in a competitive marketplace, but we also know low taxes are the result of low spending. This legislation threatens to trample on retailers in all States, forcing them to become tax collectors for other States--nearly 9,600 tax jurisdictions, as I have mentioned.

I said it before, and I will say it again. This truly is taxation without representation because businesses in New Hampshire or online businesses in other States can now be subject to doing the business of governments in other States, of collecting their taxes, when they don't elect the representatives there, when they don't rely on the roads there or the services there. Here we have it--the ultimate in taxation without representation. I say to my conservative colleagues, why would they want to support such authority given by the Federal Government?

Supporters of this amendment argue that they have created an exemption for small businesses of $1 million for small sellers, but this amount is not indexed to anything. What about the business that is $1 million and $1 in sales? Then they have to do it, and it is going to discourage businesses from growing.

Also, this limit is far lower than the SBA--the Small Business Administration--actually defines a small business.

Even with this exemption, trust me, once this exemption is in place and the States don't get all the revenue they want, they will be back. They will be back before this body to say: We didn't get enough money, so the Senate needs to authorize us further. Get rid of the exemption. We have a right to collect from those businesses as well or have them collect for us as well because that is what it is--requiring them to collect for us.

A broad coalition of groups is opposed to this far-reaching legislation. Let me talk about a few of them.

No. 1, Americans for Tax Reform. Americans for Tax Reform said:

This legislation grants states new tax collection authority

without removing equivalent taxing authority elsewhere.

Therefore, this legislation can only be viewed as a tax

increase.

The Financial Services Roundtable said:

This legislation has the potential for unintended

consequences. It's important for Congress to explore all

possible outcomes and costs of this proposal, especially the

impact on consumers.

A transaction tax on financial services products will hurt

retail investors, retired Americans, and small businesses,

effectively making it more expensive for them to invest and

plan for the long term. Without hearings, these implications

and others will not be properly addressed.

Again, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association has raised similar concerns, saying that this could lead to a financial transaction tax which will hurt all of us.

TechNet opposes this, saying:

Imposing a new Internet sales tax regime is a tremendously

complex issue that should be addressed through regular order,

starting in the Senate Finance Committee, and done in a

thorough and deliberative manner.

That has not been done here.

We should not rush a proposal that is riddled with holes

and, most importantly, does not provide enough protections

for small businesses, the back bone of our economy.

Americans for Prosperity opposes this. Americans for Prosperity says:

This bill would not level the playing field; it would

burden online retailers in a way that brick-and-mortar stores

are not. Complying with the internet sales tax would be a

considerable administrative burden for companies,

particularly for small businesses.

Freedom Works opposes this as well. Heritage Action for America opposes this. The National Taxpayers Union opposes this. The Competitive Enterprise Union opposes this. Competitive Enterprise Institute opposes this, as well as the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. These are groups that are committed to low taxes, less government, and free enterprise so we can have a strong economy.

Again, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle-- especially my colleagues on this side of the aisle--to listen to the red flags these groups and several of my other colleagues have raised.

I will conclude by once again restating the serious concerns I have about this legislation. I have concerns about the impact on small business owners in my State and in States across the Nation. I have concerns about the impact on online businesses that have been such an area of growth for this country.

The concerns about the administrative application of this bill--I showed my colleagues all the tax jurisdictions. To put that burden on businesses is absolutely wrong. It is wrong for creating jobs in this country, and it is absolutely wrong to put such an administrative burden on people who are working so hard in starting their businesses and thriving and making sure they grow.

I believe we are opening Pandora's box with this bill, and this shouldn't be done in the manner it has been--without regular order. We are talking about a massive reorganization on how sales taxes are collected in this country. What will be next? What will the States ask us for the authority to tax next? That should be a very big question for our colleagues.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to put the brakes on this bill and to think about the harm this legislation would do to small online retailers across America. When consumers and online retailers in the States of my colleagues find out what is actually in this bill and they don't understand why their Senators would support an online sales tax bill, I know they will raise many concerns to my colleagues when they have the administrative burden and the nightmare of trying to collect for 9,600 tax jurisdictions in this Nation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I finish speaking, my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, be permitted to speak.

Absolutely. In fact, as I understand it, Senator Hatch is going to be coming to the floor also to speak in opposition to it. I only have some brief comments, and I know Senator Alexander will also. If we want to divide this up, I am fine with that.

That is fair. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I rise to support the comments of my colleague from Montana on the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, which is being brought up today on the floor. I previously said it should be renamed the Internet Tax Collection Act because it is going to make online businesses the tax collectors for the Nation. And as the Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial today called ``The Internet Sales Tax Rush,'' it actually puts the Internet businesses in a disadvantage to brick-and-mortar businesses in terms of making requirements on online businesses to collect taxes for transactions that the online businesses would not have to. And for a State such as mine, New Hampshire, where we do not have a sales tax, this is also particularly onerous and tramples on the decision that New Hampshire has made to not have a sales tax.

Most important, where we stand right now with the bill pending on the floor, so many times there is so much around here that happens that does not go through regular order. Yet we have been saying on both sides of the aisle how important it is that when we have a major piece of legislation--which certainly this is--that we must go through regular order.

We just heard the chairman of the Finance Committee saying that this is circumventing the committee process, that there has not been a markup of this legislation, and that there are many concerns being raised by online businesses across this country based on onerous requirements this legislation will put on them to become the tax collectors for States around the Nation.

Many business groups are raising important issues and urging this body to go through the regular process, including the Financial Services Roundtable and the Security Industry and Financial Markets Association.

Technet said:

Imposing a new Internet sales tax regime is a tremendously

complex issue that should be addressed through regular order

starting in the Senate Finance Committee and done in a

thorough and deliberative manner.

It seems to me that when you have an issue that will impact a growing and robust area of our economy; that is, online businesses that are selling to the Nation, where we have seen tremendous growth, we owe it to the American people to have this go through regular order.

I have heard the Senate leader talk about regular order. I have heard the minority leader, Senator McConnell, talk about regular order. Here we are again not going through regular order. This should go to the Finance Committee. It should be thoroughly marked up in that committee.

I see Senator Hatch. Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch both believe this should go through the proper committee of jurisdiction so that we can address the concerns raised by so many about the bill and the way it is drafted.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. This is not the right way to do business. This bill, which has very important and negative implications for many businesses in this country and on a very important area of our economy, should go through regular order to address concerns that have already been raised by many business groups.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against cloture today.

I will yield the floor. I know the Senator from Tennessee is coming up now, and I know that he too believes in regular order. I hope that he would, at least for this bill, despite his support for it, ask it go through regular order.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate an excellent lawyer and a dedicated public servant--New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney. As Mike completes more than 14 years of service to the people of New Hampshire I would like to acknowledge his significant record of accomplishments.

Long before Mike rose to the position of attorney general, he served as a prosecutor in the homicide unit. I was privileged to work with him on several murder trials, including the case involving two murdered Dartmouth professors. And I was proud to continue serving with him when I was the attorney general and he was the deputy attorney general, working together to provide leadership for the office.

Having had the privilege of working side by side with Mike, I can attest to his passion for seeking justice in all prosecutions, his outstanding advocacy on behalf of victims, and his commitment to providing the State with legal representation and counsel of the highest quality.

After serving as legal counsel to the governor, Mike was appointed to serve as New Hampshire's attorney general in 2009. Throughout his service as attorney general, Mike served the people of New Hampshire with diligence, independence and integrity, leading by example as he and his staff performed the constitutional, statutory and common law duties of the attorney general as the State's chief legal officer and chief law enforcement officer.

As Mike leaves public service to return to private practice, I commend him on a job well done. He has successfully carried forward the highest traditions of excellence and independence of the office of attorney general and leaves a legacy of improvements to all aspects of the work of the New Hampshire Department of Justice. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his service and wishing him, his wife Caroline, and their children Will, Maggie and Katie, well in all their future endeavors.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Ayotte amendment No. 158. We should not be increasing taxes now at the expense of jobs, so my amendment would simply bring a budget point of order to prohibit tax increases while unemployment is above 5.5 percent.

The President said if we passed his stimulus package--his team said we would be at 5.1-percent unemployment now. I have heard from so many businesses, with the $1.7 trillion in tax increases that have already been brought by the President and the Democrats here, jobs are hurting. Now is not the time to raise taxes. Our small businesses are being killed by this.

Mr. President, 23 million Americans are out of work. So many are struggling, with the unemployment rate at over 7 percent. That is why I have offered this amendment.

I urge my colleagues, let's not increase taxes at the expense of jobs. So please support my amendment.

Mr. President, I stand in opposition to this so-called Main Street Fairness Act. There is nothing fair about Federal intervention in the Internet marketplace. We have seen so much entrepreneurship in the Internet marketplace. Yet what this does is force the Internet marketplace and online businesses to become tax collectors.

This act should be called what it is--the Internet tax collection act. This act essentially forces States to become tax collectors for 9,600 State and local tax jurisdictions across this country. It tramples on States rights. It tramples on the rights of private businesses in all States but especially in States such as mine, New Hampshire. It creates a bureaucratic nightmare for these States that will have to comply with almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions across this country. Guess what. They could be subject to nearly 10,000 tax audits within those jurisdictions. One of the businesses in New Hampshire--and I see Senator Shaheen is here as well--said that it is a job killer. Compliance with this act is absolutely terrifying and another blow for so many small businesses that are using the Internet.

Finally, I say to my conservative friends, there is nothing conservative about this. It is the long arm of the Federal Government punishing States such as mine that don't have a sales tax and have made fiscally responsible choices. It picks winners and losers instead of letting the marketplace do it.

There are a whole host of conservative groups that have come out against this act, including the Heritage Foundation and the Campaign for Liberty. The Americans for Tax Reform has, in fact, said this legislation can only be viewed as a tax increase. In addition to the group I just mentioned, the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, and The Heartland are against this as well. There is nothing conservative about this. This tramples on States rights. Think about it. This act turns online sellers into tax collectors because States are cash-strapped. It is wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote against it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.

I yield 3 minutes of my time to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I would say this: I can't imagine that businesses in New Hampshire or businesses in Wyoming or other businesses now--if this is passed, not only are they going to have to collect--all businesses--all 9,600 tax jurisdictions. But, heaven forbid, they are audited because now they are going to have to get on a plane, find a lawyer in another State, and deal with some other State's jurisdiction. That is the nightmare of this. I can't imagine that people would want to support it.

I also want to mention the privacy implications of this. I know the Senator from North Dakota mentioned a case she had. I actually had a case when I was attorney general where New Hampshire refused to collect tax for Massachusetts. They tried to bring us into court and I won that case.

Do my colleagues know what one of the big issues was that won it? Privacy--asking our retailers to ask people who bought things from them, where are you from, what are you going to use it for, and that is exactly the problem. There are serious privacy implications with all of the information that we are going to be gathering with this so-called making our businesses across the country tax collectors.

Generally, States do collect taxes, but we don't generally ask private businesses to do the job of the State and become tax collectors.

My amendment is simple. It respects States rights. If anyone wants to respect States rights and make sure there is a level playing field for all States to make their decisions in protecting data as well as to protect the rights of their States against foreign entities, that is what the amendment does.

I thank the Chair and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Is there any time remaining on my side?

Mr. President, I wish to say this: The Senator has it all wrong because when the business from New Hampshire--when the person from Illinois buys from the business in New Hampshire, it should be up to Illinois to enforce against their own residents because they are essentially buying from New Hampshire.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, my amendment would establish a deficit- neutral reserve fund to prohibit funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, known as MEADS. This is a system our Army has said would never work. We have already spent $3 billion on this system. It is essentially a missile to nowhere. In fact, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, has said he feels strongly that it is a waste of money. We have already appropriated $380 million in 2013 for something our troops will never use.

Some have argued there is an agreement that we have to pay termination fees. That is false. The actual agreement says the responsibility of the participants will be subject to the availability of funds appropriated for such purposes. The language is clear.

With $16 trillion in debt, I would urge my colleagues to stop funding the missile to nowhere and make sure our taxpayer dollars are used wisely.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 297, which has been brought forward by my colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment that establishes a reserve fund to repeal the onerous medical device tax. In fact, the medical device tax is nearly a $30 billion new excise tax on medical devices. It took effect on January 1 to pay for the President's new health care law, and it affects everything from orthodontics to the most complex lifesaving medical devices--just to name a few: joint replacements, knee braces, pacemakers, visual aids for sight-disabled people. It affects things that help people who are ill, such as lifesaving devices and technologies that people need, and this tax burdens all of them, and it will increase health care costs.

I thank Senator Hatch for his tremendous leadership on this issue. He has been fighting so hard to repeal this onerous tax since it went into effect. I thank Senator Hatch for bringing this important amendment forward because the medical device industry in America is a manufacturing success, and I have seen this in my home State of New Hampshire, where we have nearly 50 medical device companies that employ almost 3,500 Granite Staters. We are very proud of those companies, and we want to keep them in New Hampshire and hopefully grow them. When I campaigned for the Senate, I went to visit many of these companies. They told me about this tax and the impact it will have on their companies.

The medical device technology and medical field in this country is a great success story. In 2008 the industry employed over 420,000 workers, generated more than $24 billion in payroll, and paid 40 percent higher salaries than the national average in terms of a job. These are great-paying jobs. They are high-quality, good-paying, sustainable jobs, and this tax is going to make sure we have fewer of those good jobs that Americans want so much right now. With the Nation's unemployment rate still unacceptably high, we should be doing everything we can to create a good climate for American companies so they can strive and make sure we have more economic growth and make sure people have good-quality and high-paying jobs.

If this tax is left in place, the medical device tax will absolutely stifle hiring. For example, a 2011 study by the Hudson Institute found that the device tax threatens nearly 43,000 jobs nationwide and will cost $3.5 billion in wages. I hear a lot of talk from my colleagues about investing. This is something where this tax is basically going to kill good-paying American jobs. It defies common sense. Over 16 percent of respondents to a survey last year said they would reduce staff and employees in order to lower costs before the implementation of this device tax.

In my home State of New Hampshire, a study found that we could lose potentially hundreds of employees due to the cost of this medical device tax.

I had an opportunity to visit one of those companies, Corflex, which is located in Manchester. They manufacture orthopedic medical products. Corflex has seen steady growth over the years. It is a small thriving business in Manchester, NH. When I met with the CEO at Corflex, he showed me their balance sheets. He showed me the balance sheets before the medical device tax went into effect and after the medical device tax went into effect. What he showed me is that they went from being a profitable company to a company that would sustain a loss. This is a great company that was founded by a person in New Hampshire who was an entrepreneur and just had a dream. This tax would change a profitable company into a company that would experience a loss. He said: If this tax is not repealed, it will ultimately force companies, like us, to cut research and development dollars, pass costs on to consumers, or even consider reducing our workforce.

Last year I visited Smiths Medical Facility in Keene, which employs 500 people in New Hampshire. They are doing great work at Smiths Medical. The vice president of global operations of technology told me that repealing the medical device excise tax is about improving patient care and investing in more innovation and jobs.

The medical device tax has sadly already cost the United States thousands of jobs. We need bipartisan action now to repeal this onerous tax that is killing jobs in this country. I know there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who support the Hatch amendment.

For smaller device companies, like many in New Hampshire, this tax hits them even harder. In fact, Teleflex--a Pennsylvania-based company that has

a manufacturing plant in Jaffrey, NH--does what many larger medical device companies do: they rely on small companies to do their research and development. The vice president of Teleflex said:

I think the fear is that there is a lot of good that comes

out of small medical device companies, and with more costs

thrown upon them, it's going to be harder and harder for them

to sprout up and make a go of it . . . I think the view in

the industry is that this is going to stifle innovation.

Why is this going to stifle innovation? Because this is a tax that is not a tax on profit, it is a tax on revenue. It is a 2.3-percent tax on revenue. What does that do to startups? What does that do to investments? Basically what we are saying is, don't start your new medical device company here with your new idea on how to save American lives because we are going to tax you whether you make a profit or not. That is why this tax is very onerous on startups. It is essentially a tax on innovation.

The device tax also stands to increase health costs, and that is why I don't understand why it was used to fund the President's new health care law--because we are going to see greater costs. In fact, the CMS Actuary, Richard Foster, said he anticipates that the excise tax will generally be passed on to health consumers in the form of higher drug and device prices and higher insurance premiums. It will raise national health costs by a whopping $18.2 billion by the time we reach 2018.

Even though it only went into effect a couple of months ago, we are already hearing about the job losses in this country because of the medical device tax. We heard that Stryker Corporation laid off 5 percent of its global workforce. Covidien, which makes surgical instruments, recently announced the layoff of 200 American workers. And guess where they plan to shift their production. They are shipping it offshore to Mexico and Costa Rica. And that is the other impact of this tax--encouraging new devices to go elsewhere, to plant their new investment in other countries instead of here in the United States of America. That is another horrible impact of this medical device tax. Zimmer said it planned to cut jobs and outsource. The CEO of Cook Medical, the world's largest privately owned medical device company, said it will have about $20 million less to develop and improve patient care and access to technology. We heard so many of these stories about American companies that are being hurt tremendously by this medical device tax.

So what is this about? This is about repealing this onerous tax. This is a tax that taxes innovation, increases health care costs, and also is a tax that kills good-paying American jobs.

Finally, we want the new medical devices to be developed here in this country. We don't want them to be developed in Europe because of an onerous tax. What we are going to see is that Americans are going to have less access to the very new and best products because it is going to become too costly in this country for new companies to develop those products and for startups and, at the end of the day, it will be sad for Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support the Hatch amendment and, again, I thank him for his leadership.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, in a minute I am going to call up an amendment that I was speaking about on the floor of the Senate over the last few days. Essentially, this is an amendment that is pending to the bill--the continuing resolution and appropriations bills--that would strike $380 million of spending for the MEADS program. It is essentially a missile to nowhere that our troops will never be able to use in theater. We want to transfer that money to the operations and maintenance funding for the troops so we can make sure there are resources they can use to, obviously, make sure they have what they need for the very best equipment and training--particularly in light of sequestration and what we are facing. I know there is an agreement that is being worked out, and I hope my amendment is included in that agreement.

At this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment, amendment No. 127.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss something of deep importance to me and, I believe, to our country.

Last night the majority leader of the Senate came to the floor to speak on the continuing resolution, which is essentially the only bill we will consider this year to fund the government. It is over $1 trillion in taxpayer money. He came to the floor and propounded a unanimous consent request that only contained a handful of amendments that could be brought to the continuing resolution. Many germane and, in my view, reasonable amendments that had been advanced and brought to the attention of both sides well in advance were denied an opportunity for a vote on the floor. Because of that, I objected to the consideration of the continuing resolution and the unanimous consent request.

Frankly, I think that when we are spending over $1 trillion in the only funding bill we are going to vote on, essentially, this year-- appropriations bill--we should be allowed to have votes on amendments, particularly germane amendments, as many of my colleagues have had, and my own amendment, which is one that would strike funding for, essentially, a missile to nowhere, which will never produce a missile program or a product our military will ever be able to use.

My amendment is very straightforward. The amendment would strike funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System Program, called the MEADS Program, by $381 million-- These funds were appropriated for this program--and would actually transfer the funds to the operations and maintenance portion of the defense budget so the money could be used for our men and women in uniform for things they actually need as opposed to $380 million for a missile to nowhere for which we will never get a result.

When we are almost $17 trillion in debt, it is truly shocking that we would continue to spend money on a program the Army says it does not want. In fact, in the Defense authorization last year, the Armed Services Committee actually prohibited funding for the MEADS Program. This is something that was passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis last year in the Defense authorization bill that prohibited any further funding for this missile to nowhere. Yet it got included in the appropriations, in this continuing resolution, despite the fact that we are not going to get anything our warfighters can use from $380 million of spending.

In fact, when Secretary Hagel was asked about whether the Pentagon

would comply with this law, he said: Yes. Let's just review where we are with this program. The Army has already invested over $2 billion for this program, and we are not going to get a result. It was underperforming.

So according to John McHugh, the Secretary of the Army, in 2011, he said:

The Army has invested over $2 billion and that's only the

partial cost of the program. Frankly, it was under

performing.

What else has been said?

Frank Kendall, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, said:

MEADS is a program that the U.S. decided not to procure a

year ago. . . .

So why, when our country is facing sequestration, when our men and women in uniform need to make sure the defense dollars we are providing them are actually resources that they can use for their needs to protect them, to protect our country, are we spending $380 million on something we will not procure, for which we will not get a result? To me, this is outrageous. If we cannot cut spending for this, how are we ever going to deal with the underlying drivers of our debt, with our nearly $17 trillion of debt?

In fact, this is what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has said. I have great respect for Chairman Levin, and he said this about the MEADS Program:

We feel strongly that it's a waste of money.

I stood up on the floor last night because I have bipartisan support for this amendment. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is about making sure we do not waste money at a time when our warfighters need the money for support and training, at the time they are facing sequestration and we are facing real threats to our country. We cannot afford to spend more money on a missile to nowhere.

So I am very proud I have bipartisan support from Senator Begich, Senator Shaheen. Yet it is shocking to me that I cannot get a vote--it is germane--that we cannot strike this funding or get a vote on this Senate floor to strike this funding from this continuing resolution and to make sure the funds actually go to the operations and maintenance portion of the defense budget so they can use this money, warfighters can use it for needs they actually have.

I also want to mention that the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste supports my amendment.

The CEO of Concerned Veterans for America has said: MEADS is the quintessential Pentagon program that lives on indefinitely despite the fact that it will never see the field of battle. With our Nation drowning in $16.7 trillion worth of debt, Congress must undertake serious reforms to defense spending to maintain a sustainable fiscal path that preserves American power.

Concerned Veterans for America has supported this amendment.

Basically, this is common sense. This is the kind of thing people see at home and say: How could you possibly spend $380 million on a missile to nowhere when we know our men and women in uniform can use those funds for equipment they can use in theater, for training they can use to be prepared?

It is really unconscionable that we will not allow a vote on the continuing resolution for something that has bipartisan support, for something that was actually struck by the authorization committee on both sides of the aisle, both in the House Armed Services Committee and in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

When the majority leader took to the floor last night, he said: Oh, we have made reasonable accommodations. I do not see what is reasonable about giving a handful of amendments with over $1 trillion of spending.

On Wednesday, Senator McCain brought forth an amendment--last Wednesday, so almost a week ago--he brought forth an amendment to strike other unauthorized funds from the continuing resolution and to leave those funds for the military to use for priority items and for things our men and women in uniform actually needed. Do you know what happened? There was a motion to table brought against Senator McCain's amendment. Essentially what he was trying to do is what I am trying to do today--to stop money that has not been authorized, to stop spending money when our men and women in uniform need us to allow them to use these resources for the basic needs they have. That is why he brought this amendment to the floor. Do you know what happened? There was a motion to table filed against his amendment, and I think there was a real shock on the floor from both sides of the aisle because on a bipartisan basis that motion to table failed because both sides of the aisle realized that when we are facing sequestration, when we are facing a dangerous world, when we owe it to our men and women in uniform, we cannot continue to fund things that are not priorities, we cannot continue to fund missiles to nowhere. And that amendment was eventually adopted by voice vote. This amendment is just like that amendment.

The American people are tired of us not allowing commonsense amendments to come to the floor for a vote. With $1 trillion in spending, if we had started voting on amendments last Wednesday, after the floor was shut down--and I think there was a shock among leadership that Senator McCain won his amendment on a bipartisan basis and was able to overturn the motion to table his amendment. If we had started voting on amendments then, we would have already passed the continuing resolution. So it is an absolute cop-out to say that we are somehow faced with a government shutdown, that somehow we cannot have votes on the Senate floor on amendments that are important, germane, and relevant.

Before I yield, I wish to support my colleague Jerry Moran because he was also denied an amendment that is an important amendment. I am a cosponsor of that amendment. The FAA has notified 189 towers across the country that it is going to cease to fund the towers' operation because of the sequester. Senator Moran has a commonsense amendment that would make sure it restores 95 percent of this funding by taking money from other areas in the FAA budget that will not disrupt operations.

Well, there is a tower in Nashua, NH, at Boire Field that was on the list of the FAA despite the airport's importance to both the United States and New England and despite a recent investment of over $24 million by the FAA to upgrade the airport's runway.

Senator Moran's amendment, which he is also being denied an ability to bring on this floor to have both sides vote on--he has strong bipartisan support--this amendment would ensure that towers like the tower at Boire Field in Nashua, NH, my hometown, would continue to operate. Yet we will not be given a vote on this Senate floor despite the strong bipartisan support Senator Moran has for his amendment, just as I have bipartisan support for my amendment.

So I have to ask, what is the problem? Why can't we just vote on the amendments--start voting, keep voting, get it done? We can pass the continuing resolution. We can continue to fund this government. But do you know what. We can make improvements to the continuing resolution by striking money for the missile to nowhere, by making sure the air towers that the FAA is shutting down continue to operate in this country.

I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have many more ideas as to how we can improve this continuing resolution, but the American people will never know about those ideas because we are on a Senate floor where we are not being allowed to vote, to vote on the amendments that matter to the American people, that strike wasteful spending, that improve this important piece of legislation.

I think if we had started voting last Wednesday, we would have already allowed every person in this Chamber to have a vote on their amendment, as the Senate was intended to operate. This is intended to be the most deliberative body in the world. Yet, if you cannot bring up an amendment that is germane to strike spending for a missile to nowhere, it really renders the operation of the Senate at this point not what the Founding Fathers intended, and it puts a gag on the American people; that their elected representatives cannot come here and get votes on things that are going to strike funding like this, that are going to make sure air towers continue to operate in this country.

I think we owe it to the American people that their elected representatives can come down here and get a

vote on amendments that matter, that make a difference, that can improve this continuing resolution. Frankly, this notion that we cannot have votes on it--obviously, people do not want to have votes on it. They want to continue funding missiles to nowhere, whether it is their parochial interests or whatever interests that are driving them. It is wrong. We have to stop it.

Bring this amendment to the Senate floor. Let's vote it up or down now, and let's move forward.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to address some comments that were made. I came to the floor earlier to talk about $380 million of funding for the MEADS Program, which is the missile to nowhere. I sought, and continue to seek, to offer an amendment to the continuing resolution and the appropriations bill before the Senate right now to strike that funding, and then to transfer the funding from this missile to nowhere to the operations and maintenance fund so that our troops can use the money for important needs they have, especially in light of sequestration.

My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin--for whom I certainly have great respect--came to the floor earlier to counter what I had to say. In fact, the Senator from Illinois said essentially that the U.S. taxpayers have truly invested in this program, and he suggested that if we were to cancel funding for this missile to nowhere, we would be incurring damages, or that our allies who have entered into this MEADS Program with us--under the agreements we have entered into, our allies--in particular the Germans and the Italians--would be able to seek damages from us, so, therefore, we would incur damage costs by terminating it.

I want to point out, first of all, not just in my view, this is wrong based on the plain language of the memorandum of understanding we have with our allies.

In fact, I go back to first-year contracts class in law school. When you have an agreement with someone, you start with the language of your agreement and the language of the contract. The language of the contract of the

memorandum of understanding we have on the MEADS Program in 2005 with Germany and Italy says very clearly:

The responsibilities of the participants will be subject to

the availability of funds appropriated for such purposes.

So a first-year contract student would know that if we do not appropriate funds for the missile to nowhere, then we will not have legal obligations to our allies. In fact, that is essentially what the Department of Defense said to us when they wrote in a report to Congress about this with regard to the 2013 funding.

Please understand the history of this. In 2012, in the Defense authorization, the defense committee said very clearly: This is it. We are not going to fund a program anymore that is not going to get us a result. We are not going to waste taxpayer dollars anymore. So understand, this is the end of our obligation.

As a result, the Department of Defense said clearly to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

[i]f Congress does not appropriate FY 2013 funding, the

U.S. DOD [Department of Defense] would take the position that

the FY 2012 funds represent the U.S. DOD's final financial

contribution under the MOU. The U.S. DOD would also take the

position that failure to provide FY 2013 funding would not be

a unilateral withdrawal from the MOU . . .

So contracts 101, very clearly, if we cut off the appropriations for the missile to nowhere and make sure that this fund goes to actually something our warfighters need and can use, we will not be subject to a claim by our allies because we expressly protected the taxpayers in the 2005 MOU that was entered into.

In addition, I will say that there is another portion of the agreement itself. Section 5 of the 2005 MOU states that our maximum commitment from the United States had to be $2.3 billion. Yet between 2004 and 2011, we have already spent $2.9 billion on a missile to nowhere that we are not going to get a result from. So not only do we have no responsibility because we clearly put in that if we did not appropriate for this, then we would not have further responsibilities under the MOU, but in addition to that, we have already paid $2.9 billion, and the MOU says our responsibility is only $2.3 billion.

So I come to the Senate today to say, with great respect to my colleague from Illinois, his claim that somehow terminating this contract is going to subject the United States to damages is wrong and is not supported by the plain language of the agreement, and we should not continue to fund a missile to nowhere.

I will end with this. If you look at the history of this MEADS Program, what has happened? The House Armed Services Committee said in 2013--excuse me, the 2013 authorization: End funding for this program-- zero. The Senate Armed Services Committee said: End funding for this program. It is a missile to nowhere. Zero. The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee said: End funding for this; We are not going to appropriate for this. Zero.

The only committee that has appropriated for this is the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, and if we stop that appropriation, we can end the missile to nowhere. That is what my amendment is about. That is why I hope we will have an amendment and a right to be heard on the continuing resolution. I wish to make sure money goes into the operations and maintenance fund so it can be used for our troop needs during a difficult time in addressing sequestration.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I have filed an amendment. I filed it last week. It

is a reasonable amendment that both sides have been aware of. It is one that is also germane. It is to strike funding, $380 million in funding from the continuing resolution for a missile defense program that will never protect a single warfighter. It is a medium extended air defense system. In fact, it has been called a missile to nowhere, and my amendment would transfer those funds to operation and maintenance so they could be used for our warfighters, particularly as sequestration is pending, for real purposes instead of a program we will never realize anything from, that would protect our warfighters. I reserve the right to object.

I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue I am very concerned about, which involves a man who was recently captured overseas. His name is Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, and he is Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. Here is a photo of him sitting next to Osama bin Laden. In fact, he appeared with Osama bin Laden right after the 9/11 attacks on our country.

He is Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, captured overseas and brought to the United States of America. The Attorney General has made the announcement Osama bin Laden's son-in-law

will be tried in New York City in a civilian trial rather than being brought to Guantanamo Bay for further interrogation and held in military custody.

I am very concerned about this issue as this is a man who, based upon the relationship he had with Osama bin Laden in 2001 and 2002, served as a spokesman for al-Qaida. He urged others to swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden. On September 12, 2001, he appeared with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. He is shown in this photo.

He warned the United States and its allies, ``A great army is gathering against you.'' He also called on all Muslims to battle the Jews, Christians, and Americans. He also promised more 9/11-style attacks. Right after our country was attacked on September 11, he appeared with Osama bin Laden warning of more September 11 attacks. He said, ``The storms shall not stop, especially the airplane storms.''

In 2002, he reportedly arranged to be smuggled to Iran where he was held under some form of house arrest. Obviously, we need to understand why the Iranians were allowing such a prominent member of al-Qaida to be kept in their country. We have deep concerns about Iran, which is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is threatening our country and right now marching toward nuclear weapons capability. It has threatened to annihilate Israel and threaten our country, while he was under loose house arrest following his direct allegiance with Osama bin Laden.

In addition, American authorities have tied him to an October 8, 2002, attack on the U.S. Marines while training on an island off the coast of Kuwait. This was a situation where one of our marines was killed and another was seriously injured.

The attack was conducted by al-Qaida fighters with direct ties to Mr. Abu Ghaith, who is Mr. Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. Kuwait actually stripped Mr. Abu Ghaith of his citizenship because of his role in recruiting Kuwaitis to become members of al-Qaida.

Last week he pled guilty to charges in Federal court in New York City. I am concerned when we take a top member of al-Qaida after his capture overseas, such as Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, bring him to our courts in New York City, and then all the full rights of our civilian court system apply to this individual. This includes the right, when one is in custody and interrogated, to hear Miranda rights.

My former role was as attorney general for the State of New Hampshire. I have great respect for our civilian system; however, our civilian system was not designed to deal with situations where we are at war. Mr. Abu Ghaith falls clearly within the definition of what this body has authorized as the use of military force against an enemy belligerent. When we bring him to New York City, we must Mirandize him and inform him he has the right to remain silent. We lose valuable opportunities to gather intelligence, to protect our country, and to discover if he was with Osama bin Laden.

We have photos of him one day after the September 11 attack. What does he know about al-Qaida? Who else was involved? What does he know about their network? During the time he spent in Iran, was he still communicating with members of al-Qaida? Obviously, he was because we allege he helped commit an attack in 2002 in Kuwait which killed at least one marine.

Who was he communicating with? What future attacks are they planning? What associations has he made with members of al-Qaida? When we tell someone such as this he has the right to remain silent and give him a lawyer, we lose opportunities to protect our country.

When we are at war, as we are with al-Qaida, we need to focus to discover as much information as possible about al-Qaida: who they are targeting and who are the members of al-Qaida. Obviously, all of us supported the President's decision to take out Osama bin Laden. Who are the other members of his network? What information are we losing when we bring him to a civilian court system instead of bringing him where he belongs as an enemy belligerent in Guantanamo Bay?

It seems to me inconsistent that the administration would take the position--and I support them on this--they would kill top members of al-Qaida overseas. Yet they are so averse--when they capture someone-- to bringing them to Guantanamo Bay. It is their preference to take them into a civilian court system in the United States of America, where they must read Miranda rights to that individual rather than take them where they belong, to Guantanamo Bay.

I have visited Guantanamo, which is a secure detention facility where people are treated humanely, kept very securely, but not on U.S. soil. We may keep them in Guantanamo Bay under the law of war and interrogate the individual as long as we need to.

Let me remind everyone the intelligence we gathered, which allowed us to find and take out Osama bin Laden, took a matter of not just months but years to gather. To take someone such as Sulaiman Abu Ghaith and immediately, after he is captured, very quickly bring him to New York City, we lose the opportunity to go back to him over time to understand the full amount of information he may have about al-Qaida. This is why we have a distinction under our law between the law of war and our civilian system.

He is not a bank robber. He is not an average criminal who should be treated the same way as any other criminal in America. He is someone who has sworn to kill Americans and has asked others to take the oath for al-Qaida, which is at war with our country. I am very worried about the fact the administration seems to be bent on bringing these foreign terrorists to the United States to give them all of the rights of our civilian court system rather than focusing on ensuring we have all the intelligence we need to protect our country.

I would like to also speak about another individual and the inconsistency we have here. This is Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen. He was radicalized, possessed both American and Yemeni citizenship, and became a leader for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. He advocated for violent jihad against the United States and has been linked to a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States. These include links to the September 11 attacks against our country and links to the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting.

The administration made the decision in September 2011 to take out Mr. al-Awlaki overseas in Yemen. I certainly support their decision in that regard.

I want to point out how inconsistent it is that we are willing to use the drone program to take out someone like al-Awlaki, and yet we will not use all the tools in our toolbox to ensure Osama bin Laden's son- in-law is held at Guantanamo and fully interrogated to give us the time we need to gather the full information he has. It is very inconsistent, and I think the administration should be detaining enemy belligerents in Guantanamo and ensuring they are interrogated.

I wish to mention one final person, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Let's not forget the administration's first decision with the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was to bring him to New York City for a civilian trial in New York close to Ground Zero, as they are now making the decision with Osama bin Laden's son-in-law.

The public outrage was great over bringing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York City due to the amount of security it would take to secure someone like him. There was the concern he should be treated as an enemy of our country and tried by a military commission in Guantanamo. He was transferred there eventually by the administration, but only after great pressure from both sides of the aisle in Congress to say it would be appropriate that the mastermind of 9/11 belongs in Guantanamo before a military commission.

I think we find ourselves in the same situation now with Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. There can be no doubt he is a top member of al- Qaida; that he had close relationships with Osama bin Laden; that he is charged with conspiring to kill Americans. These are very serious charges, and there can be no doubt that he falls within our operation and the use of military force; that he is an enemy of our country and that we should be treating him in a similar fashion as to how we treated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Most of all, we need to prioritize intelligence gathering to prevent future

attacks against our country rather than focusing on bringing them immediately into our civilian court system. A man such as Osama bin Laden's son-in-law should never hear the words ``You have the right to remain silent.'' We can't afford to have him be silent. We need to know everything he knows to protect our country, its citizens, and to prevent future attacks on America and our allies.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.