Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to say on behalf of several Republican Senators, including Senators Burr, Isakson, Kirk, Roberts, Hatch, and Enzi that I am introducing today the Every Child Ready for College or Career Act. This bill would let States decide whether schools and teachers are succeeding or failing. It would end the accumulation of Federal mandates that have piled up on States and local school districts and has created, in effect, a national school board. It would help 50 million children in 100,000 public schools learn what they need to know and be able to do by restoring responsibility to States and

communities and giving teachers and parents more freedom, flexibility, and choices.

I will have more to say about this on Monday in a floor speech, but I wanted to call it to the attention of our colleagues.

While it is being offered by Republican Senators, we do not see it as a Republican bill. We see it as a piece of legislation that will attract the support of classroom teachers, principals, Governors, legislators, and others who have been working for 30 years to set high standards, create better tests, create accountability systems, and pioneering in developing teacher evaluation systems.

We believe it is the proper role of the Federal Government to create an environment for better schools, but not to issue orders from Washington. The combination of No Child Left Behind mandates, Race to the Top mandates, and mandates as a result of the Secretary of Education's waivers have created such congestion in the U.S. Department of Education that it has become, in effect, a national school board.

We want to head in the other direction. We want to give back to States and local governments the responsibility for deciding whether schools and teachers are succeeding or failing. I hope all of our colleagues will read the Every Child Ready for College or Career Act.

Senator Harkin and I look forward to the markup next Tuesday in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We will offer competing versions. His is more than 1,100 pages, and ours is 220 pages. This is a symbol of the differences in our approaches. We will begin a debate which I hope goes through the committee, moves to the Senate floor, combines with the House in conference, and produces a result that reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Mr. President. If the Acting President pro tempore will let me know when I have used 10 minutes, I would appreciate it.

If no other Senator is on the floor, I will continue.

Mr. President, I am here today to speak on clean energy independence, but before I do that

I want to note the passing of Senator Frank Lautenberg.

When I came to the Senate 10 years ago, there were a number of Members here who were veterans of World War II. Now there are none. Senator Lautenberg was the last. He was a member of the generation often described as the greatest.

He was the son of immigrants. He made a lot of money in business as an entrepreneur in the American dream. Then he did another entrepreneurial thing: He ran for the U.S. Senate and served twice here. He was an advocate for the things he believed in, and he was a productive Senator. Just in the last couple of weeks he helped to fashion an agreement on amending the Toxic Substances Control Act, of which I am a cosponsor. It has been a long time coming, and he had a major role in that.

We will miss him. To his wife Bonnie and to his family, they have my respect and condolences and admiration for his long service to our country.

Mr. President, 5 years ago I spoke at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I began with a story from our past about our future. It is a familiar story to those of us in Tennessee.

President Franklin Roosevelt called the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee into his office in 1942 and said: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you to hide a couple billion dollars in the budget for a secret project to win the war.

Senator McKellar replied: Mr. President. I just have one question: Where in Tennessee would you like me to hide it?

That place turned out to be Oak Ridge. That was how Tennessee became one of the sites where scientists worked to build the atomic bomb before the Germans.

I suggested 5 years ago that we have a new Manhattan Project--really mini-Manhattan Projects for clean energy independence.

Last week at Oak Ridge, 5 years after that first speech, I suggested four grand principles to help us chart a competitive energy future for the next 5 years to end our obsession with taxpayer subsidies and strategies for expensive energy and instead focus on doubling government-sponsored research and allowing marketplace solutions to create an abundance of cheap, clean, reliable energy. I would like to renew those comments today on the floor of the Senate. The four grand principles I mentioned were, No. 1, cheaper, not more expensive, energy; No. 2, clean, not just renewable, energy; No. 3, research and development, not government mandates; and No. 4, the free market, not the government, picking winners and losers.

The seven grand challenges I suggested 5 years ago were grounded in challenges from the U.S. National Academy of Engineering. My challenges included making plug-in electric vehicles more commonplace, finding ways to capture and use carbon, helping solar become cost-competitive, safely managing nuclear waste, encouraging cellulosic biofuels, making new buildings green buildings, and creating energy from fusion.

My goal in laying out those seven challenges was clean energy independence. At the time, some took issue with the idea of a grand goal underlying these challenges, but I thought independence was a good goal then, and it is a good goal now because the United States should not be held hostage by any other country because of our energy needs.

Since I spoke 5 years ago, the Department of Energy has established the energy innovation hubs that are producing fuels from sunlight and advancing nuclear reactor and battery technologies. That, paired with the work of the new energy research agency--which we call ARPA-E--and others, has moved us forward on my seven grand challenges in a number of ways. Let me summarize that briefly.

Electric vehicles sales are approaching 100,000 in the United States, and ARPA-E has helped a company that has doubled the energy density of lithium-ion batteries.

Carbon capture. We are developing commercial uses for carbon dioxide, such as liquid fuels produced from microbes.

Solar power. Though the goal is around $1 per watt installed by 2020, the cost has fallen from $8 to $4 per watt in the past five years. It still has a long way to go, but it is promising.

Nuclear waste. Four of us in the Senate have drafted comprehensive nuclear waste legislation. For the first time in 30 years, we are building new large reactors, and we are moving forward on small modular nuclear reactors.

Advanced biofuels. There are three new bioenergy research centers that are developing next-generation bioenergy crops for industrial- scale production.

Green buildings. Research and development has meant 20 new commercial products in energy efficiency.

Fusion. We have already demonstrated human-engineered fusion on a small scale, and now we are trying to scale it up for commercial energy production.

The United States has made gains, but we still have challenges. Even as other parts of the world grow rapidly, the U.S. still uses about 20 percent of the world's energy, and the Energy Information Administration estimates that our country's energy demand will increase more than 10 percent by 2040.

Second, we have record oil and gas production at home, but we need to be as independent as possible from those who might want to use our demand for oil to hold us hostage. Former Secretary Condoleezza Rice once said she had ``never seen anything warp diplomacy like high oil prices.'' And affording a tank of gasoline remains a struggle for many families.

Another challenge is failing to keep up with energy research and development, which is one of the major points I want to make today-- failing to keep up with energy R&D. That energy research has given us abundant, reliable, clean, cheap energy from unconventional gas to nuclear power. The amount we spend on energy research and development-- nearly $5 billion a year at the Department of Energy in nondefense and noncleanup research; or nearly $9 billion if you count other agencies and their energy-related research, such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of the Interior, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology--still, those dollars are lower as a percentage of our gross product than major competitors such as France or Japan or Korea or China.

Another challenge is that while the United States has made more gains in reducing the use of carbon than any other industrial country, the National Academies of the United States and 12 other countries have warned that human activity has contributed significantly to climate change and global warming.

So thinking about the progress we have made from 5 years ago and taking into account the challenges we still have, let me suggest four grand principles that could guide our energy future. First, cheaper, not more expensive energy. Five years ago all the talk was about a cap- and-trade program for the United States and deliberately raising the price of energy as a way of achieving clean energy independence.

Last year I was in Germany, a country that adopted exactly that policy. In addition, Germany is closing its nuclear powerplants and becoming more dependent on natural gas but buying both forms of energy from other countries rather than producing it on its own. The Germans are subsidizing wind and solar but are building new coal plants in order to have enough reliable electricity.

In short, what I found in Germany was an energy policy mess that discourages job growth. The end result is that Germany has the second highest household electricity prices in the European Union. When I asked an Economic Minister what he would say to a manufacturer about energy costs in Germany, he said: I would suggest he go somewhere else. Well, that somewhere else is turning out to be the United States: Virginia, Tennessee, other States.

In the United States, we pursued a different track, the most conspicuous example of which is finding unconventional gas and oil. This has created for our country a remarkable phenomenon, a large amount of cheap, clean energy with our own domestic price for natural gas.

This has been the result of a peculiar combination of factors that, in my opinion, amount to a better energy policy than most people give us credit for. The first element is the entrepreneurial spirit of America and the large amount of private property ownership and our huge private market. Another is access to capital. A third and indispensable element is government-sponsored research.

Take our Nation's natural gas boom as an example. In the past it was uneconomical to develop so-called unconventional gas. Government- sponsored research enabled it and demonstrated how it could be done. A temporary Federal tax credit that expired for new shale projects at the end of 1992 encouraged new sources of private capital. Natural gas will be a big part of where we get our clean energy, which leads me to my second principle: clean, not just renewable, energy. Too often we define our energy goals in terms of renewable energy when we should mean clean energy. There are a number of States that have renewable energy mandates defined mainly to include wind and solar power. The Congress is regularly asked to pass a narrowly defined renewable energy mandate for the same purpose.

It is true these energy sources emit no air pollution. These mandates say a certain amount of electricity generated within a State must come from these specific sources. But focusing on this narrow definition for clean energy misses the point, and at a high cost to our electric bills.

Such narrow definitions also discount hydropower and nuclear power, some of our country's cheapest and most available sources of air pollution-free electricity. In the Tennessee Valley Authority region where I live, for example, more than 95 percent of our pollution-free electricity comes from TVA's dams and three nuclear plants, which include six reactors.

Second, mandating renewable energy runs the risk of creating too much reliance on sources that generate power only intermittently. There is certainly a place for these renewable technologies, and solar power especially seems to me to have great promise. But renewable energy consumes great amounts of space, whether it is solar or wind or biomass.

For example, it would take a row of giant wind turbines all the way from Georgia to Maine on the Appalachian Trail to generate the same amount of electricity that we would get from four nuclear power plants. You would still need the nuclear plants because the wind only blows when it wants to.

Fortunately, we have plenty of rooftops on which to put solar panels. When they become cheap enough and aesthetically pleasing enough, they will probably become an increasingly important supplement to our country's huge appetite for electricity, especially because the Sun shines during the peak-use hours.

Battery technology will help make all forms of renewable energy more useful, which brings me to my next principle: research and development, not government mandates. It is hard to think of an important technological advance in our country that has not involved at least some government-sponsored research, especially in the area of energy.

The most recent example is the development of unconventional gas that was enabled by 3D mapping invented at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Department of Energy's large-scale demonstration project.

There is an argument that by imposing government mandates, just as by imposing higher prices, government could force some innovation that could move us toward clean energy independence. But I believe the surer path would be to double the federal funding we spend annually on non- defense and non-cleanup energy research and development and trust the marketplace to produce better results.

In 2005 the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, written by a commission led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, recommended doubling energy research and development. In 2007 Congress responded by passing the America COMPETES Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. Senator Coons and I are working together to reintroduce the America COMPETES Act for a second reauthorization after its original passage.

One small agency that is the result of the America COMPETES Act is what we call ARPA-E. It is already showing signs of the wisdom of this approach. ARPA-E has helped improve battery technology and worked to produce liquid fuel from microbes, among other accomplishments. Seeing how our free enterprise can capitalize on this brings me to my fourth and last principle: free market, not government picking winners and losers.

We are more likely to have abundant supplies of cheap, clean, reliable energy in the United States if we trust the marketplace. The most appropriate role for government is in research. I believe a second role is limited jump-starting of new technologies; for example, unconventional gas, about which I just spoke, involves government research and a limited tax credit.

The full tax credit for electric cars is capped at 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer. To encourage innovation in nuclear energy, the government provided research and licensing support for small modular reactors, but that is limited to 5 years.

Even for nuclear power plants there is a production tax credit, but it is limited to 6,000 megawatts. On the other hand, President Reagan used to say the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this Earth is a government program. That is too often the case with energy subsidies. The most glaring example of that is the more than 20-year- old subsidy for wind power, a technology that former Energy Secretary Chu said was a technology that had ``matured.''

This was supposed to help jump-start wind. But we have already lost $16 billion in Federal revenue from 2009 through the end of 2012 alone. Congress just added a 1-year extension of the wind production tax credit, costing $12 billion. Remember, the Department of Energy spends just $5 billion on energy research.

We are spending $12 billion in a 1-year extension of the wind tax credit. The wind industry's idea of a phaseout would cost tens of billions more. People talk about Big Oil, but the big, unnecessary subsidy is big wind, and a much better place to spend our money would be energy research.

I have been fascinated with the progress we have made on the seven grand challenges I suggested 5 years ago. Perhaps by focusing on these four grand principles, the ones I have suggested in this speech, we can capitalize on the last 5 years of progress and move toward cheap, clean, reliable energy.

Oak Ridge's evolution since the Manhattan Project days provides a good model. About 70 years ago the astonishing collection of physicists that produced the two atomic bombs also enabled nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and other technological advances.

What can we expect 5 years from now? To get a glimpse of the future we might look at what fits within the guiding principles I have suggested today. For example, small modular reactors and virtual reactors that scientists are developing will revolutionize the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear technology.

Game-changing manufacturing is also on the horizon with 3D printing. ARPA-E, a small agency of the Department of Energy that came from America COMPETES, and other groups are increasing the reliability of our electricity supply.

This United States of America is a remarkable place. With the potential I have described and the principles I have suggested, a competitive energy future is well within our grasp.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, being a majority leader is not an easy job whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. Some good things have been happening in the Senate recently, and I think we should credit both the majority leader and the Republican leader with helping to make that happen.

Over the last few weeks we have seen the water resources bill come to the floor. The majority leader allowed Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter to manage the amendment process, to handle the necessary arguments that always occur about what they will be. They came to a conclusion and passed a bill. The bill went through committee, went through the floor. It is a very important bill because it deals with locks, dams, and ports in the United States. We want to make sure that as the Panama Canal is widened and deepened, that ports in the United States are deep enough to receive the bigger ships and that the locks and the dams are in good enough shape so that commerce can move through the company and the jobs can be created. That is an important piece of legislation.

And now we are on the farm bill and we see the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Michigan managing a bill. There is plenty of opportunity for amendments, as far as I have been able to tell, and that has been very helpful.

At the same time, we have coming out of the Judiciary Committee, after several days of intense work, a bill on immigration. Probably the four most important words that can be said about the immigration debate is that we are all Americans, and Americans know we must have a legal immigration system if we want to be able to say we are all Americans. And we want one. We don't have an enforceable legal system today. All of us know that. None of us like the status quo, I don't think, and all of us know the President and the Congress are the only ones who can fix it. This is not something we can dump on the mayors or the State legislatures.

Many of us haven't formed a final opinion about this legislation that is coming forward, but I, for one, respect the fact that it has moved; that it has four principal Republican sponsors and four principal Democratic sponsors. It has moved through the committee, voices have been heard, it is coming to the floor, and, again, the majority leader has indicated, and the Republican leader has agreed, there will be a full and open debate so the American people can see it and watch us come to a result.

All those are good things. In addition, so that we might do that, there are a number of nominations about which we are likely to disagree. They will come after that so as not to interfere with the immigration debate.

That brings me to my final point. I would note the fact that with occasional interruptions for debate over whether we are going to go to a budget, which I hope gets resolved, we are on a pretty good path right now. I hope the majority and the minority leaders can see that.

We are moving this afternoon to a vote on a Federal appellate judge for the D.C. Circuit. A major objective of the Democratic side has been to get another judge on that circuit, and the President has nominated a person, Mr. Srinivasan, who, by every account, is an exceptional attorney. He came out of the committee with an 18-to-0 vote and has widespread respect and support.

The only glitch in the process is the majority leader believed it was necessary to file a cloture motion this week, even though the Republican leader had agreed we would have an up-or-down vote on the Tuesday we get back, and every indication is that almost everyone would vote for that judge. That has now been resolved, and we are going to vote this afternoon at 2 p.m. I know better than to predict how the Senate will vote, but I will vote for Mr. Srinivasan, and I suspect he will be easily confirmed.

In all of this the majority leader has believed it was necessary to suggest that somehow there is a problem with the President's nominations being considered by the Senate, so I think it is important that someone other than the Republican leader--because it is his job, really, to defend our side--lay out the facts, and I hope I can do that with some credibility because I worked with my Democratic colleagues at the beginning of the last Congress and at the beginning of this Congress to make it easier for this President and future Presidents to have their nominations considered. We have changed the rules to make it easier.

Just a few months ago, in a long discussion that involved Senators on both sides in a debate on the floor, we made a number of changes to make it easier for a President to have his nominations considered. And 2 years ago we adopted the expedited nominations, where nominations simply come to the desk. If no single Senator wants it sent to committee, it just sits there until all the paper is in, then the majority leader will just move it on. Within the next few days there will be a number of

those that come out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. So that speeds things up.

We removed from the list of nominations about 160 low-level executive nominations. They are not subject anymore to Senate advise and consent. The President may just go ahead and appoint those persons.

We have gotten rid of the secret hold, which was used for a long time to hold up nominees, and even to block them, because no one knew who was doing that. Earlier this year we changed the rules so that when a district judge comes up, there can't be a long debate after the district judge comes to the floor. As a result, things are moving along very well.

So I would like to say there is not a problem with the President's nominations being considered in a timely fashion by the Senate. There is no problem. There is, however, the responsibility for advice and consent. Most of our Founders did not want a king. They created a Congress and they said: Here is an advice and consent. So we now have about 1,000 people the President will nominate whom we are supposed to consider, and we should do that well. That is our job to do, and it is our check on a runaway Executive.

When I first came here, Senator Byrd made wonderful speeches about that. I remember the speeches Senator Kennedy gave from the back row, with that big booming voice of his, about President George W. Bush's recess appointments and how offended he was by those because they offended the Constitution. Senator Byrd, as I mentioned, was very eloquent, going all the way back to President Reagan's days.

So we have always jealously defended the people's right to have an elected group of representatives to check the Executive, and we need to use that in a responsible way. Therefore, it is important to have an accurate report on just how well President Obama is being treated by the Senate in terms of his nominations.

I have just noted that we have changed the rules to make it easier. I did not even say we have even made it easier for the nominees; we set up a working process to make it easier. I like to call it a response to the ``innocent until nominated'' syndrome.

The President picks some well-respecting person from the Midwest and sends his or her nomination to the Senate, and all of a sudden it is as if they were a criminal of some kind. That is because there were so many conflicting forms to fill out it was easy to make a mistake and look as though you were misleading the Senate. We have tried to simplify that, and this President is the first beneficiary of that change.

So this President is the first beneficiary of consecutive Congresses that have changed the rules to reduce the number of potential nominees subjected to advice and consent. We have expedited a number of others, and we have made it easier--easier and quicker--for the President to have his nominations considered. This President is the first to benefit from that.

So what are the results? The majority leader suggested there was delay and obstruction. Those words just come out automatically sometimes when people wake up in the morning on that side of the aisle. But let's look at the facts.

I asked the Congressional Research Service to take a look at the Washington Post article written earlier this year--now, these are not Republican people I am asking, this is the Congressional Research Service--about how President Obama is being treated in terms of his Senate nominees.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 16, 2013-- that is last week--President Obama's Cabinet nominees were still, on average, moving from announcement to confirmation faster than those of President George W. Bush or President Clinton. President Obama's nominees were moving from announcement to confirmation, at that time last week, in 50.5 days, George W. Bush averaged 52 days, and President Clinton averaged 55 days.

So let me say that again: President Obama's Cabinet nominees are moving ahead in the Senate more rapidly than those of his two predecessors: one of them President George W. Bush and one of them President Clinton. So there is no delay there that is unusual.

It is not unprecedented, Madam President, for some second-term nominations to take much longer to move from announcement to confirmation than the average. President Clinton's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, took 135 days; President George W. Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, took 85 days. I remember the case of one especially distinguished nominee for Secretary of Education by President George H.W. Bush, a former Governor of Tennessee whose name was Alexander. His nomination took 88 days from announcement to confirmation, and President Reagan's nominee for Attorney General, Ed Meese, took nearly 1 year.

Now that is an unusual case, but it is not so unusual for second-term nominees to take a little while--for the Senate to perform advice and consent. And as the Congressional Research Service and the Washington Post have reported in their own analysis, President Obama's Cabinet nominees are being better treated than either President Bush's or President Clinton's in terms of the time it takes to confirm them from announcement to confirmation.

Now, one last thing. What about judges? Sometimes I have heard Senators on that side and Senators on this side get up and give conflicting information about whether judges are being considered rapidly. Here is what the data says about the judicial nomination process.

If Mr. Srinivasan is confirmed today, as I expect he will be, President Obama will have had 20 judges confirmed at this point in his second term, including 6 circuit judges and 14 district court judges. At this point in his second term, President George W. Bush had 4. So that is 20 for President Obama, 4 for President George W. Bush. No unusual delay there.

Apparently, President Obama's nominations are being considered more rapidly than those of President Bush. To be specific, let's go to the district court nominations. We know, with all the talk of a filibuster, in the history of the Senate there has never been a nominee for a Federal district court judge who has ever been denied his seat by a filibuster after that nomination came to the floor. So that needs to be said, too. But right now there are five pending district judge nominations that have been reported from committee that haven't been confirmed.

There have been 33 nominations this year. Fourteen are already confirmed, five are reported from committee, as I said, and await floor action. They were reported in May and April and three of them in March. So there is no big backlog. There are five. They were reported in the last few weeks. So no excessive delay there.

Finally, on circuit court nominations. I mentioned we are likely to confirm one of the three that are today pending, Mr. Srinivasan. Twelve nominations of Federal circuit court judges have been received this year. Six will have been confirmed after this afternoon. That leaves two--two--circuit court judges who have been nominated by the President and await floor action. They were reported by the committee in April and February.

So I can't find any evidence of any delay on Cabinet nominations. In fact, President Obama is being treated better than his predecessors. I don't see any evidence of any delay on judicial nominations. After the vote on Mr. Srinivasan, President Obama will have 20 confirmed in his second term, President Bush had 4. And there are only five pending district court nominations, all reported within the last few weeks. There are only three circuit nominations, one of which is likely to be confirmed this afternoon. On that one, the majority leader indicated Mr. Srinivasan, who has such widespread support on both sides of the aisle, had been waiting forever. Well, he has been waiting a while. President Obama nominated him on June 11, 2012. But why did he wait? Madam President, he had no hearing. Who is in charge of setting hearings? The Democratic majority is in charge of setting hearings. The Republicans can't call a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

So their nominee, Mr. Srinivasan, sat there all of last year, after June 11, without a hearing. There may have been delay, but that was a self-inflicted delay.

What about this year for Mr. Srinivasan? Here is the timeline. He was nominated again on January 4 by

the President. His hearing was April 10. I don't know why they had to go from January to April to have a hearing, but, again, that is solely within the control of the Democratic majority. He returned his questions--which we all have to do if we are nominated for an executive position--on May 6. That is this month. The committee considered his nomination May 16, which is just last week. They approved it 18 to 0. That is all Democrats and all Republicans voting yes. He came to the calendar of the Senate on May 20. That was on Monday.

Madam President, I will conclude for those who are expecting to do that, but these are timely remarks.

So, Mr. Srinivasan, nominated on June 11, 2012--no hearing by the Democratic majority and the executive committee, I wonder why; nominated January 4 by President Obama this year again, no hearing until April 10. If there is any delay there, it has no fault anywhere on the Republican side. May 6, questions returned; no nominee is considered by the committee until his questions come back; marked up May 16 last week, 18 to 0, unanimous; came to the floor on Monday and the Republican leader moved yesterday to ask unanimous consent that we consider an up-or-down vote for Mr. Srinivasan when we return after a week, which means he would have been fully considered then, to which the majority leader put down a cloture motion.

Now he has removed the cloture motion but there was no need for the cloture motion. The only suggestion may be he did it, he made it so it would look as though there was some delay over here, but there is no delay. Mr. Srinivasan has broad support. We are ready to vote for him up or down. I think it is time we got away from this idea of manufacturing a crisis about nominations when in fact we have made it easier for any President to offer his nominations, and the majority leader and Republican leader agreed at the beginning of this year when we did that, that that was the end of the rule changes for the Congress in this Congress.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, Friday's Washington Post reported that Secretary Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services ``has gone, hat in hand, to health industry [executives], asking them to make large financial donations to help with the effort to implement President Obama's landmark health care law. . . . ''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article following my remarks.

The article further said that the ``unusual fundraising push'' comes after Congress has repeatedly rejected the administration's requests for additional funds to set up the Affordable Health Care Act. The article said many of the Secretary's calls have recruited support for Enroll America, described as the most prominent nonprofit working on the health care law's implementation. Its president, Anne Filipic--the article goes on to say--joined the group in January after serving as White House deputy director for public engagement.

Today, the New York Times included an article by Robert Pear: ``Cabinet Secretary Solicits Large Donations to Publicize Health Care Law.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record following my remarks.

In the article, it said:

. . . Ms. Sebelius had made calls soliciting support from

the health care industry, including insurance and

pharmaceutical executives.

. . . . a spokesman for Ms. Sebelius, said she had

suggested that health care executives and others support the

work of Enroll America, a private nonprofit group that shares

the president's goal of securing coverage for people without

insurance.

An insurance executive said that some insurers had been

asked for $1 million [in] donations, and that ``bigger

companies have been asked for a lot more.''

Administration officials said private donations were needed

because Congress had provided much less money than Mr. Obama

requested to publicize the new law and get people enrolled in

health plans subsidized by the government.

The article further talks about Ms. Filipic. She worked on Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign. She was deputy executive director of the Democratic National Committee. She worked in the Obama White House as deputy director of the Office of Public Engagement. She said her time is not political in her work for enroll America.

She says:

We are thrilled to be working with Secretary Sebelius and

to have her support.

Several executives who received these calls for money said ``they were uncomfortable with the discussions because the federal government has the power to approve or reject the health plans they want to sell in insurance markets that will be run by federal officials in more than 30 states.''

Secretary Sebelius's fundraising for and coordinating with private entities helping to implement the new health care law may be illegal, should cease immediately, and should be fully investigated by Congress.

Later this week, I will be sending a letter, with several of my colleagues, to the Government Accountability Office asking them to examine the issue. We will be asking the GAO to examine the amount of coordination between the Department of Health and Human Services and Enroll America and whether Secretary Sebelius is trying to do through a private entity activities that Congress has refused to allow the Department to do.

Such private fundraising, as these articles describe, circumvents the constitutional requirement that only Congress may appropriate funds. If the Secretary and others in her Department are closely coordinating with the activities of Enroll America, which is headed by the former White House aide, then those actions may be in violation of the Anti- Deficiency Act.

The limits of the Anti-Deficiency Act were fully explored by Congress during the Iran-Contra incident, when Reagan administration official Oliver North raised funds and directed their spending through private entities in support of Nicaraguan rebels even though Congress had refused to appropriate such funds.

This produced a select joint committee of the Congress, including many of its most distinguished Members--the Iran-Contra joint select committee. The Senate ranking members were Senator Inouye and Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The House leaders were Lee Hamilton and Dick Cheney, who was the ranking Republican.

The report of the Iran-Contra Joint Select Committee--Senate Report No. 100-216--at page 413 said:

The constitutional plan--

Referring to the U.S. Constitution--

did not prohibit the President from urging other countries to

give money directly to the Contras.

The rebel group in Nicaragua.

But the Constitution does prohibit receipt and expenditure

of such funds by this government absent an appropriation.

This prohibition may not lawfully be evaded by use of a

nominally private entity, if the entity is in reality an arm

of the government and the government is able to direct how

the money is spent.

The report also said:

Congress's exclusive control over the expenditure of funds

cannot legally be evaded through the use of gifts or

donations to the executive branch. Were it otherwise, a

president whose appropriation requests were rejected by

Congress could raise money through private sources or third

countries for armies, military actions, arms systems or even

domestic programs.

Let me read this again. This is the joint committee:

Were it otherwise, a president whose appropriation requests

were rejected by Congress could raise money through private

sources or from third countries for armies, military actions,

arms systems or even domestic programs.

That is page 412, page 413 of the Iran-Contra joint select committee report.

Friday's Washington Post reported that the Secretary's spokesman said Sebelius is working with private entities on ``our mission'' of implementing health care law activities, although Congress has refused to appropriate more funds. If the Department of Health and Human Services closely coordinates with Enroll America and with other such entities, then the analogy with Iran-Contra is strong.

It is hard for me to see the difference. There is a difference in where Oliver North got his money in 1985, 1986, and 1987 with Iran- Contra. Some of it came from the hostages-for-arms sale. But the question is not as much where the money comes from--although in this case the Secretary may be raising it from people she regulates, which could also be illegal--the question is where the money is going. In the case of Iran-Contra, the money was going to a private entity, supporting a rebel army in Nicaragua, in contravention of the Boland amendment passed by Congress. In other words, Congress had said no, and the administration did it anyway.

That is precisely, it seems to me, what is happening here. Congress has said: No, we are not going to appropriate any more money--or as much as you want--to implement the health care law. And the Secretary appears to be raising money from people she regulates, to give it to private entities with whom she coordinates, to do what Congress has refused to do.

The problem with that, first, is the Constitution of the United States gives the power of the purse to the U.S. Congress, in Article I. No. 2, there is a Federal law that says you cannot do through private entities what Congress has refused to do. That is called the Anti- Deficiency law. And, No. 3, there are some Federal laws about raising money from people you regulate for whatever purpose.

The Secretary's activities may violate those Federal laws prohibiting raising private funds from those she regulates. Federal law permits a narrow band of private fundraising activities, but this has always been interpreted very narrowly.

This would not be the first violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act by the Secretary's HHS. The General Accountability Office found HHS in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act three times last year.

I am most concerned that the Secretary's actions reflect a deep disregard, running throughout the administration, for the constitutional role of the elected representatives in the legislative branch.

We saw it in the President's decision in January of 2012 to bypass the Senate's role of advice and consent and make appointments--recess appointments, which are authorized by the Constitution--at a time when the Senate said it was not in recess. A Federal court quickly ruled these appointments were unconstitutional, because the Senate was not in recess, but the individuals continue to show up at the National Labor Relations Board and pretend they have the authority to issue decisions.

We see this in a number of executive orders the President has used to circumvent Congress on issues as important as immigration enforcement and in the number of czars whose responsibilities are intended for roles that need the Senate's advice and consent.

We see it at the Department of Education, where the Secretary is turning a simple waiver authority in No Child Left Behind into a conditional waiver with the Secretary using his authority to make decisions that should be made by Congress or should be made locally by State and local governments.

The HHS Secretary's actions may follow an administration pattern, but in this case it is in a pattern that appears it may be illegal and it demands investigation.

So I will be, as I said, with other Members of Congress, later this week, sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office, asking them to look at these facts.

Mr. President, I wish to read a few paragraphs from the Iran-Contra report that was issued by the Joint Select Committee in the late 1980s:

The Constitution contemplates that the Government will

conduct its affairs only with funds appropriated by Congress.

By resorting to funds not appropriated by Congress--indeed

funds denied the executive branch by Congress--Administration

officials committed a transgression far more basic than a

violation of the Boland Amendment.

That was the amendment that said you cannot use Federal dollars to support rebels in Nicaragua.

The power of the purse--

Continued the joint select committee. This was written at a time when we had a Democratic Congress.

The power of the purse, which the Framers vested in

Congress, has long been recognized as ``the most important

simple curb in the Constitution on Presidential Power.'' The

Framers were determined not to combine the power of the purse

and the power of the sword in the same branch of government.

. . . The constitutional process that lodges control of

government expenditures exclusively in Congress is the

Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits an officer of the

United States from authorizing an expenditure that has not

been the subject of a Congressional appropriation or that

exceeds the amount of any applicable appropriation.

Thus, the Anti-Deficiency Act provides:

An officer or employee of the United States Government may

not make or authorize an expenditure or authorization

exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for

the expenditure or obligation; or involve [the] government in

a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an

appropriation is made unless authorized by law.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks these excerpts from the joint committee's report; and I refer the Record to Article I, Section 8 and Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which says:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .

Then two other things. One is the purported authority that the Secretary's spokesman is citing for her actions in raising money. I have not seen the authority for raising money from people she regulates. But 42 U.S.C. section 300u-1(a) talks about grants and contracts for research programs, and says:

The Secretary is authorized to conduct and support by grant

or contract (and encourage others to support) research in

health information and health promotion, preventive health

services, and education in the appropriate use of health

care. Applications for grants and contracts under this

section shall be subject to appropriate peer review.

This small section relates to support for contracts for research and information programs in the form of grants or contracts. The parenthetical, ``encourage others to support'' has to be read as encouraging others to support such programs. It is far-fetched to say it gives the Secretary authority to encourage third parties to give money to nonprofits providing ObamaCare information that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot fund directly because Congress has refused to appropriate.

This small section and the words in parenthesis cannot amend the Constitution of the United States and invalidate Article I. This section cannot supersede the Anti-Deficiency Act, according to the language of the Joint Committee. There is obviously a way to have appropriate public-private contracts. We have them all throughout government, public-private associations to try to improve our country. We do that with HIV/AIDS, we do it with a whole variety of things.

When I was Education Secretary, I worked with the first President Bush to set up the New American Schools Development Corporation, which encouraged a private corporation headed by former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, which would raise money to create models for private schools.

Then later on President Bush 1 asked Congress to do some things in support of those schools. All of us encouraged that, but that was quite different. That was an effort that would be typical of many public- private partnerships in which the Federal Government is involved, where in this case we said we want to encourage the support of model schools. Here is a private corporation that is doing that. We encourage that. Congress was not objecting to that. Congress has not said: You cannot do that. Congress has not been asked to vote on an appropriation for the New American Schools Development Corporation. Congress had not said: You cannot do that.

So that would be true with dozens, may be hundreds of public-private partnerships between the Federal Government and private organizations for the same goal. But what we are talking about, and why the analogy between what Secretary Sebelius is doing and what Oliver North was doing in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s is so strong, is because in each case the money seems to be raised privately and spent through private entities for a function for which Congress has refused to appropriate money.

It is not so much where the money came from, it is more where the money is going. The Constitution itself, in Article I, makes it absolutely clear no one can appropriate dollars for a Federal program other than the Congress of the United States. A subterfuge that goes around that, seeks to go around that by raising private money, putting it in private entities for the same purpose that Congress has either refused to appropriate money for or said that you cannot do, that is outside the Constitution. It is not allowed by the Constitution of the United States, and it is against the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Then there is the separate question of whether it is appropriate to raise money from people the Secretary regulates. I am deeply concerned about this. I hope the Secretary will stop this action. I hope the public-private partnerships we have throughout government will continue where they are appropriate, but we need for the executive branch of government to show proper respect to the people of this country who elect their Members of Congress.

We are Article I. They are Article II. The purpose of the power of appropriations is to put a curb on the executive branch. If the Congress says no, then the executive cannot spend money, nor can the executive go through a subterfuge of private organizations and private fundraising in support of the very same objective that Congress has refused to approve.

In this case, the Secretary seems to say the reason they are doing that is because Congress has refused to appropriate more money to implement the health care law. That seems to me to be just admitting a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, admitting a violation of the proper division of responsibilities in the Constitution.

Yes, Congress has refused to do that, but that is the Congress's privilege to do that. When the Congress does that, the administration may not proceed to spend the money the Congress has not authorized, whether directly through the government or indirectly through private entities.

Later this week we will be asking the Government Accountability Office to look into these facts. I am sure we will be hearing more about it. I would hope in the meantime the Secretary will stop making the phone calls, stop coordinating with private entities to do things that Congress has specifically refused to do.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks an article published July 8, 1991, ``Bush Sets Up Foundation to Start Model Schools'' as an example of an appropriate way to have a public-private partnership or a private enterprise that is encouraged by the government but not in a way that seeks to do something Congress has refused to do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to also have printed in the Record the names of the members of the Iran-Contra select committee.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank Senator Enzi for this opportunity, and in fact there is a Federal moratorium that prohibits State taxes on access to the Internet. I was in the middle of that debate several years ago, and when the Marketplace Fairness Act is enacted that ban will still be there. In other words, today there is a Federal ban on Internet access taxes, and after this law passes, there will continue to be a ban on Internet access taxes. This issue is not about taxing the Internet, it is about the collection of State sales and use taxes that are already owed.

The complexities raised by our critics are unfounded, and I would like to ask Senator Durbin what his thoughts are on these claims.

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

Mr. President, we have an opportunity to vote today on an important piece of States rights legislation--at least that is the way I look at it as a former Governor of Tennessee.

Here is what the legislation does. It is called the Marketplace Fairness Act. There are many reasons to support it, but the reason I like it is because it gives Governors and legislators the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they can require out-of-State sellers to do the same thing in-state sellers are required to do; that is, to collect the sales tax already owed.

Let me say that again. This legislation is States rights legislation. It allows Governors and legislators in Maine or Tennessee or wherever-- Illinois--to decide for themselves whether they want to require out-of- State sellers to do the same thing in-state sellers already do, which is to collect the sales tax that is already owed when something is sold. That is it.

Before I went back to Tennessee, some people here were saying: We don't trust the States to make this decision. I think I know the answer to that from Tennesseans. I have spent the last week going from one end of our State to the other. Everywhere I have gone, I have asked a question. I said: There are some people in Washington who said they trust Washington to make a decision more than they trust Governor Haslam and Speaker Harwell, Lieutenant Governor Ramsey, and the Tennessee Legislature to decide what to do about taxes.

The last time I checked, Tennessee had an AAA bond rating, no State road debt, one of the lowest tax rates in the country, and was named the second freest State in the country. And the last time I checked, Washington, DC, was running up $1 trillion of debt and more every year. Nobody in Tennessee trusts Washington more than the Governor and State legislature to decide what to do about taxes, particularly when it comes to whether we are collecting a tax that is already owed.

This is such an obvious piece of legislation that many of the opponents have resorted to interesting arguments, let's say, in opposition to it.

It has been said that the bill should have gone through committee. Well, it went to committee, but the chairman--a very respected Member of this body--doesn't like the bill, so he didn't report it to the floor. So that is why it didn't get out of committee.

They have said it should have more amendments. All of us, particularly on our side of the aisle--we are in the minority--would like to have as many amendments as we can. But there is one reason this bill didn't have amendments, and that is because opponents to the bill objected to every single amendment, every single one, even amendments they support. Senator Pryor and Senator Blunt offered a 10-year extension of the moratorium on Internet access taxes, and the Senator from Oregon objected to that even though he wrote the original act.

Some have suggested that what we are talking about is a tax on the Internet, but every Senator knows there is a law against a tax on the Internet.

Some have said: Well, it is a new tax. But of course it is not. It is an existing tax. One of my colleagues over here said that the only thing he hates worse than a tax is somebody who doesn't pay a tax that is owed. This is a tax that everybody owes that only some people pay. What we are trying to say to the Governor of Maine or to the Governor of Tennessee or to the Governor of Illinois is this: You can decide for yourselves, without playing ``Mother May I'' to Washington, DC, whether a State wants to treat some taxpayers one way and some another way, some businesses one way and some businesses another way.

Then there are some who say it is too complicated. Well, this is how complicated it is. If I order ingredients to make ice cream over the Internet from Williams-Sonoma, I put in my name, my address, and my ZIP Code, and the software figures out the sales tax, collects it, and sends it to the State of Tennessee, how hard is that?

I guess the complete answer to that is that a majority of Internet sales today collect the sales tax that is owed. If it is so hard, how are they doing that? Let me say that again. A majority of the retailers that sell over the Internet today collect the sales tax when it is owed using the software that is as simple as looking up the weather on a person's computer. I look up the weather in Maryville, TN. I type in my ZIP Code, and I type in ``weather,'' and it tells me the weather. That is about how easy this is. A majority of the retailers that sell over the Internet today collect the sales tax when they make the sale, so it can't be not only impossible to do, but it is not hard to do.

Then there are some who say conservatives aren't for this. One of the leading proponents of this legislation is the chairman of the American Conservative Union, Al Cardenas. He sent out an e-mail last week, and he sent out another one today.

Dear Senator: As you continue work next week on the

Marketplace Fairness Act, I would like to call your attention

to what conservatives are saying about this issue. They

recognize as I do that it is not the role of government to

pick winners and losers in the marketplace by requiring brick

and mortar stores to charge a sales tax while exempting

Internet sales.

Sincerely, Al Cardenas, Chairman, American Conservative

Union.

He included in his e-mail--I received this e-mail--the comments of Charles Krauthammer, a conservative if there ever was one.

The real issue here is the fairness argument--that if

you're an old-fashioned store, you have to have your

customers and you pay the sales tax and online you don't . .

. So I think you want to have something that will level the

playing field. You can do it one of two ways. You abolish all

sales tax for real stores and nobody pays. Or you get the

Internet people to pay the sales tax as well. I think the

second one is the only way to do it, obviously.

Representative Paul Ryan--he was home this past week too. He was in Janesville, WI. He is a pretty good conservative, last time I checked. I don't go around making a list of who is a good conservative and who is a bad one. I just think most people in America think of Paul Ryan as a conservative, just as the chairman of the American Conservation Union does.

Representative Paul Ryan:

To me, I think the concept is right . . . It's only fair

that the local brick-and-mortar retailer be treated the same

as the big-box online sales company out-of-State.

Lest one think the chairman of the American Conservative Union and Charles Krauthammer and Paul Ryan are all on another planet somewhere,

here are a few other conservatives who agree with him: William F. Buckley before he died wrote extensively about this; Republican Governors Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, Robert Bentley, Paul LePage, Bill Haslam, Butch Otter, Terry Branstad, Rick Snyder, Mike Pence, Tom Corbett, and Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota.

This is common sense. This is fairness. This is States rights.

For the life of me, as a former Governor, I do not understand how Congress can say to the conservative Republican Governor of Tennessee, the conservative Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee, to the conservative supermajority Republican legislature: You have to play ``Mother May I'' with Washington, DC. We don't trust you to make decisions about your own tax policy. We think Washington does a better job.

That is laughable. That is just laughable.

What we are doing with this bill--and I will conclude with this--is very simple. It is two words: States rights. It allows our State of Tennessee, our Governor and legislature, to make a decision: Will they decide to require out-of-State sellers to do the very same thing they require in-state sellers to do; that is, collect the sales tax when they sell an item and remit it to the State government? It is a tax that is already owed. It is not a tax on the Internet. It is a tax some people are paying and other people aren't even though they owe it. It discriminates against mom and pop small businesses.

This bill only applies to large retailers--those that sell more than $1 million in remote sales each year.

To the charge that it is too complicated, how could it be too complicated if a majority of Internet sales being made today already collect the sales tax?

All we are saying is that the Governor and the legislature may wish to say to all taxpayers: If you owe the tax, you are going to need to pay it, and if you pay it, we can lower the tax rate for everybody in this State.

I thank Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi for their leadership and bipartisan support. I regret that we didn't have more amendments, but the opponents used as their tactic to try to kill the bill--which I hope won't be successful--their right to object to every amendment. We can't do much about that.

So after the bill passes, which I hope it does tonight, the House will consider it, and I am sure they will come up with their version of the bill, and we can go to conference and we can pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, a States rights bill that, in my view, is exactly what conservatives hope would happen.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask I be notified when I have consumed 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from North Dakota on 20 years of work on this issue, Senator Enzi for 11 years of tireless work here, and Senator Durbin for his effective advocacy. I will make four quick points.

The Senator from Texas said reinvigorating the economy should be the No. 1 priority for Federal and State leaders. That is precisely the first sentence of the column of economist Art Laffer in the Wall Street Journal where he says:

States can cut their income tax rates if web vendors

collect the sales taxes that are legally due.

In other words, if you want economic growth, vote for the Marketplace Fairness Act.

No. 2, the idea that this is too complex to do--more than half of the sales now made on the Internet are by retailers that collect the tax when it is sold. It is a tax that is already owed, so how can it be too complex for anybody else to do? It is already being done. So that is specious.

No. 3, it has been said this should have gone to committee. It did. It just never came out of committee because the chairman, and I say that with great respect, did not want it to. It should have had amendments. Yes, it should have had amendments. Why didn't it have amendments? Because the opponents to the bill resorted to objecting to every single amendment.

Finally, I say this to my Republican colleagues: This is a conservative bill. I just mentioned Mr. Laffer. I read this earlier, but I want to read it again. The comments of the chairman of the American Conservative Union, Al Cardenas:

Dear Senators, you continue work next week on the

Marketplace Fairness Act. I would like to call to your

attention what conservatives are saying about the issue. They

recognize, as I do, it is not the role of government to pick

winners and losers in the marketplace by requiring brick and

mortar stores to charge a sales tax while exempting Internet

sales.

He then lists the comments of Charles Krauthammer favoring the idea, Representative Paul Ryan favoring the idea, and, of course, as we know, William F. Buckley did before he

died. Many Governors do. This is an idea for conservatives and for our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, 3 times Senators have voted, either with 74 or 75 votes, in favor of this legislation--a majority of Democratic Senators and a majority of Republican Senators. On Monday we were ready for amendments, but the small group of Senators who oppose it objected. On Tuesday we asked to have time given back so we could begin amendments. There was an objection. On Wednesday the Senator from Arkansas asked for a 10-year moratorium on Internet taxes, and there was an objection. And we are ready today, as we will see.

Sometimes we Republicans feel as though Democrats keep us from offering amendments. Whether that is ever true, this is different. In this case, Democrats and Republicans--a small group--are blocking the majority of us, Democrats and Republicans, who want to go forward with the bill and who have been ready to consider amendments since Monday.

We respect the points of view of those 24 or 25 Senators who disagree with us, but with 3 votes of 74, 75 votes, can we not have our amendments, bring this to a conclusion, send it to the House of Representatives, and let it go through the process it needs to go through?

So this is different. This is both sides--a small group--blocking amendments the large majority on each side wants to move forward with.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the Senators from Maine. I think it makes a lot of sense. It is symbolic too. Here we have a bipartisan amendment, we have a Republican Senator and an Independent Senator. The Independent Senator is a former Governor, as I once was.

The reason I support the amendment is because it gives more time for anybody who might be affected by this amendment to adjust to it. That is never a bad idea--almost never a bad idea in the Senate.

It gets us to our goal a few months later than we had thought. It makes sure those who might be affected can adjust. Of course, many people who call my office are surprised to learn that it does not affect anyone unless they have revenues of more than $1 million a year. So about 99 percent of people who sell things online or in catalogs are not affected.

Of course, it does not affect Internet taxes; we have a law against Internet taxes. In fact, another bipartisan amendment by the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Missouri was to extend the 10-year moratorium on Internet taxes. That was objected to.

The Collins-King amendment is imminently reasonable. I think it strengthens the bill. It is offered in a good spirit. Some may wish to go faster, but I think it is sensible and reasonable. I fully support it.

I would reiterate that we were ready to accept amendments on Monday, but there was an objection--not a partisan objection but by Democrats and Republicans, a small number.

We were ready on Tuesday to go ahead with amendments, but there was an objection, a bipartisan objection to going forward. We were ready on Wednesday with a bipartisan proposal to put on the 10-year extension of the Internet tax, but there was an objection.

This is like--I have used this before, but this is like joining the Grand Old Opry and not being allowed to sing. This is what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to bring up these bills, consider reasonable amendments, and vote on them.

We are at noon on Thursday. We have not been allowed to do what we could have finished on Tuesday. So I greatly respect the Senators on the other side. I know their feelings; we have strong feelings too. As a former Governor, I do not think it is any of Washington's

business to continue to keep us from making decisions about our own taxes and tax structures. Some people say they do not trust the States. Most of the people in my State do not trust Washington to make decisions about spending. We do a heck of a lot better job of making decisions about taxes and spending and collections than people do here.

So we pretty well made up our minds. Three times now we have had 74, 75 votes for this bill. We are ready to proceed. We have several amendments that have been filed, some by those who oppose the bill. That is fine. Bring them up. Let's vote on them. They may make good sense, just like this amendment makes good sense.

So I thank the Senators from Maine for being constructive, for making a commonsense proposal to the bill. I support it. I hope that very soon we can debate it and vote on it and finish this legislation.

Madam President, first let me join the Senator from Maine in expressing to the Senator from Montana my regret that he is retiring. He has had a long and distinguished career here, and I have enjoyed working with him and look forward to working with him the rest of this year and next year. He has a history of independent thinking and working across party lines, which is valuable in the Senate.

On the point the Senator from Maine made--and I see the Senator from Montana may want to say something, so I will be brief. The bill as proposed, the Marketplace Fairness Act, the pending act, has a 6-month implementation period. This would add 6 months to that so there would be a total of a year for implementation of the bill. This is a reasonable period of time.

As far as the bill going to Finance Committee, it has been in the Finance Committee. Nothing would have pleased the sponsor of the bill more than for the chairman and other members of the committee to bring the bill up, mark it up, and send it to the floor, but they didn't do that.

As Senator Collins said, Senator Enzi has been introducing different bills for the last decade or so. But he introduced this very basic bill, about 11 or 12 pages, S. 1832, on November 9, 2011. It was referred to the Finance Committee. In April of 2012 there was a Finance Committee hearing on State and local tax issues, including the Marketplace Fairness Act. The Senator from Montana referred to that in his remarks the other day, so there was some other hearing on this very bill in April of 2012. That is a year ago.

Then the Senate Commerce Committee in August held a full hearing on this bill involving many Senators with a lot of testimony, and I was there. It is certainly arguable that the Commerce Committee is at least as involved in this issue as the Finance Committee, because while the Parliamentarian has sent it to the Finance Committee, it has nothing to do with the Tax Code, zero. In any event, that is where it has been.

In this Congress, the Marketplace Fairness Act was introduced, this very 11-page bill, in the second month of this year and referred to the Finance Committee. Sixteen Senators have asked for it to be heard and marked up.

It is certainly the prerogative of the chairman to decide in a busy committee what he has time to do and not to do. It certainly seemed to everyone that the Finance Committee had become a dungeon for the bill and not a place where it was likely to ever come out. I believe that is exactly why rule XIV is in the Senate rules, to allow the majority leader to take a bill, bypass the committee, and bring it to the floor. One that has had this much thought, this much consideration, is an excellent candidate for that.

The cure for that, it seems to me, is to take these amendments and work them through, consider them on the floor, debate them, vote them, and continue the process. Send the bill to the House and let the House do what it will, have a conference if it is necessary. There are plenty of opportunities to deal with the bill.

The point is the Finance Committee ought to have the bill. The Finance Committee has had the bill. The Finance Committee wouldn't act on the bill. Now we are past the point of sending it back to the Finance Committee. It is before us. It has votes of 74 or 75 Members of the Senate. It has the majority of each side. We have been ready ever since Monday to consider the amendments that have been offered to the bill by both proponents and opponents of the legislation.

I would hope the Senators who oppose the bill will not object to the amendments but will participate in the process and allow us to move forward on the bill.

Madam President, I know the Senator from Louisiana is coming. When he comes, I will be through.

I say to the Senator from Wyoming who just said that apparently there is an intention to object to any amendment, just to review, we started Monday.

We could have started amendments Monday if there were no objection, but there were objections, bipartisan objection.

On Tuesday we said that instead of going the full 30 hours of debate, let's give the time back and let's start the amendments. Bipartisan objection.

On Wednesday we brought up the bipartisan proposal of Senator Blunt and Senator Pryor to extend the moratorium on the Internet tax. There is already a moratorium on taxing the Internet. You cannot have it. That is the law. We were going to extend it for 10 years. Objection.

Then today Senator Collins and Senator King say: Instead of implementing this in 6 months, let's do it in a year. Objection.

If it continues this way--and I say to the Senator from Wyoming, this is the way I figure the procedure--if there is no consent, always objection to any amendment from both a few Republicans and a few Democrats, then we will have a vote on cloture tomorrow. That would be tomorrow afternoon, I guess--tomorrow morning. Probably for the fourth time, 74 or 75 of us will vote for the Marketplace Fairness Act. Then we will stay here until Saturday afternoon for the full 30 hours, and we will have a vote on the two amendments and final passage. That will be Saturday afternoon. And probably another 74 or 75 votes for that, I hope. That is what will happen if a few Democrats and a few Republicans continue to say: No amendments.

I want to make sure no one on our side of the aisle stands up and says they, the Democrats, are blocking amendments, because they are not. Most Democrats and most Republicans want to offer and vote on amendments. A few Democrats and a few Republicans say no. I believe that is where we are procedurally, if that persists.

I completely respect the point of view of other Senators. I never question a Senator's vote. That is his or her prerogative, and it is their prerogative to keep us here until Saturday afternoon if that is what they wish to do. But that is not really a very good way for the Senate to work when we have three-fourths of us, a majority on both sides of the aisle, who are for something and we are ready to move through it with amendments and improvements and debates. This is not a good procedure, but it is procedure.

This is the season for parades in Tennessee. On weekends and Fridays, I go home. I have a rule of thumb: Walk in parades. I put on my red- and-black plaid shirt that I walked across Tennessee in. I walked in the Saint Patrick's Day parade in Erin. I walked in the Mule Day parade in Columbia--100,000 people there, lots of mules there. I always try to walk at the front of the Mule Day parade for obvious reasons. And tomorrow I was looking forward to walking in the parade at the Paris Fish Fry. But if we continue to object to every amendment to this bill, I will not get to walk in the Paris Fish Fry tomorrow, but we will pass the bill on Saturday, and I suspect we will pass it with 74 to 75 votes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to engage the Senator from North Dakota, if I may, in a colloquy for a few minutes on the subject, so we may speak through the Chair to each other.

The Senator from Montana has raised a good question about audits. Let me say to the Senator from North Dakota, I wish to paint a picture, and I wish to ask the Senator from North Dakota to help me because she may be one of the newer Members of this body, but she knows more about this subject than most of us put together because of her experience, with all respect to all the Senators already here in the Senate. I wish to paint a picture of what would happen if we don't act.

We are talking about audits. We are talking about businesses. Let's think about what we are talking about. I want to look to Washington from Nashville, TN, or from some other State

capital--the requests that States are making of us is that if I am a Governor of Tennessee or a legislature, I want to be able to make the decision myself as a sovereign State about whether people who sell in our State are treated in the same way.

A person may be a catalog seller or an Internet seller or a brick- and-mortar seller, but if an entity is going to sell in our State and we have decided we are going to have a sales tax instead of an income tax, if we require the local business to collect the tax, we are going to require everybody who sells there to collect the tax. If an entity wants to sell in our State, that is what they need to do. If they want to drive in our State, they follow our speed limit. They follow our criminal laws. If one lives in our State, they pay our income tax. If someone sells in our State, wherever they are in the world, we want them to collect the tax and send it to us. That is what we are talking about, treating everybody the same in that way.

So the obvious thing comes up: What about all these different jurisdictions? We hear a lot about 9,600 taxing jurisdictions, and I live in Maryville, TN. So the city might have a sales tax and the State might have a sales tax and they might be different than what the next city is.

So my question to the Senator from North Dakota is--what this law does is it streamlines these 9,600 jurisdictions. It simplifies the whole process to make it easier for out-of-State sellers. It takes advantage of the technology of the Internet so there could be a single tax return for each State, a single audit for each State, and States often work together with audits and there can only be one audit per year; in other words, it reduces this burden.

Of course, if an entity is in Kansas and they are selling in Tennessee, they may be subject to an audit and they file a report every year electronically. But, according to this, there can only be one a year.

What if we didn't pass this law? Let's say I am an enterprising Governor of Tennessee, which I once was, and I say, the Senate can't get anything done. They can't even agree when they have 75 people on both sides of the aisle who already have voted 3 times for the bill. So I have given up on them. So I am going back to the Supreme Court 20 years later, after Senator Heitkamp wins as tax collector for North Dakota, and I am going to say, back then, 20 years ago, we didn't know anything about the Internet and this case came to the Supreme Court and the Court said it is too much of a burden on interstate commerce for you to require out-of-State sellers with no physical presence in the State to do the same thing you already require your instate sellers to do on taxes that are already owed--taxes that are already owed. I am going to go back to the Court and say things have changed. Times are different. I can take my computer out and I can put in my ZIP Code and type in ``Williams-Sonoma,'' figure out the sales tax I owe when I buy my ice cream freezer online, and they can collect it and send it to the State of Tennessee. So it is not any sort of burden on interstate commerce.

It is my right as a sovereign State to make everybody who wants to sell online or by catalog into the State of Tennessee--I am going after them. I am going after them if they don't collect the tax. Then, my friends in Mississippi see me do that and they do it too and then Kentucky does it and then the next State does it and then all 9,600 taxing jurisdictions go after this single remote seller.

They might come back to the Senate and say: Why didn't you guys do your job a few years ago? Why didn't you simplify this system? Why didn't you create something that was easy, which limited our liability, which made the States provide us with the software that makes this work, which limited the audits to one a year, which limited the tax to one per State? Why didn't you make it so even a smaller seller--99 percent of the Internet sellers are exempt from this act--a smaller seller wouldn't have to worry about it?

So I ask the Senator from North Dakota if she would respond, given her 20, 30 years of experience in this whole issue, am I exaggerating? What would it be like if the State of Tennessee got tired of the Senate not being able to act after all this time and went back to the Supreme Court and won the case and Tennessee and North Dakota and all the other States started enforcing their laws against remote sellers?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her knowledge and her contribution to the debate. Of course, what she is emphasizing is that if we do act, we simplify things for the small businessperson. For one thing, we exempt anyone whose revenues are less than $1 million. That, by some economists' studies, is 99 percent of all Internet sellers. If we don't act and a case is won in the Supreme Court today, that is different than 20 years ago. There is no $1 million exemption--there is no $1 million exemption--and there is exposure to 9,600 tax districts if they win that case.

So the thing to think about is if we do our job, and the Supreme Court said 20 years ago we are the ones to do it--and 74 or 75 of us 3 times now have indicated we think we should through this 12-page bill, we will provide an exemption for virtually all Internet sellers, we will create rules that simplify, and we will give States the opportunity to do what States should have the opportunity to do. My heavens, I hear some people say--and I have said this on the floor-- Washington didn't trust the States to make these decisions about tax matters. Nobody in Tennessee

trusts Washington to make decisions about tax matters. So what this bill does is say to the State of Tennessee or Delaware, it is your business; you decide it. If what you want to do is collect tax from some of the people who owe it and not all of the people who owe it-- States have the right to be right; States have the right to be wrong. That is what the 10th Amendment is about. In some States, they will use the money to pay teachers more for teaching well.

In the State of Ohio they have already decided if this passes, they are going to lower the income tax. The Governor of Idaho said he already has his eye on a tax he would like to lower. If we can collect taxes from everybody who already owes them--and that is the important point to make. We are not talking about new taxes; we are talking about taxes people aren't paying that they owe. So why should I have to pay my tax, and if the Senator from Delaware is in the same similar situation, why should he not have to pay? So in each State, the same people ought to have to pay.

Art Laffer, the distinguished economist who wrote a good column in the Wall Street Journal endorsing this idea of marketplace fairness, said the best tax, if there has to be a tax, is one that affects the largest number of people at the lowest possible rate. If we have a 10- percent sales tax in Tennessee and 25 percent of the people who buy things are not paying a tax they owe, they ought to be paying it. They ought to be paying it. If they all pay it, we can lower the rate for everybody. That is what--we are not deciding that here; we are just deciding the States could have the right to decide.

But the important point of the Senator from North Dakota is that if we act, we are protecting the small seller by creating the $1 million exemption. We are protecting the small seller or any remote seller by saying you have a limited liability, a limited number of audits, a limited number of States to do it in, and if we don't act and the Supreme Court hears this case, Katy bar the door, and out-of-State sellers all over the world will be coming to the Congress and saying: Why didn't you do your job?

So there is a good reason why we have a majority of Democrats who have voted three times to express their support for this bill and a majority of Republicans who have done the same. There is a good reason why leading observers across the country, from the chairman of the American Conservative Union and others who don't like to see States picking and choosing between winners and losers--there is a good reason all of those people support this. And there is a good reason it is an 11-page bill. It is a simple idea.

We have sovereign States. States make their own tax laws. Unless States, by their tax laws, create an unconstitutional burden on an out- of-State seller, it is no business of ours. We should create the environment the court says to give them the freedom to make those decisions for themselves. Some may do it one way, some may do it another, but States have the right to be right, States have the right to be wrong, and we have the responsibility to recognize the constitutional framework of our country which was created by sovereign States.

Thank you, Mr. President.