Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak about why this body should reject the amended version of the immigration bill. I believe our immigration system is broken. As a matter of fact, I know the Senate could agree unanimously on the fact that our immigration system is broken. This includes both the legal system which allows individuals to visit and work in our country in addition to the failures which continue to allow others to reside illegally within our borders. The intentions of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the sponsors of this bill are correct. Those Senators deserve credit for their work on the bill over the past few months. However, as we approach final passage on this legislation I have to say I respectfully disagree with the final product and its failures to make fixes in several key areas.

The first key fix rests in the fact that the United States remains a place of opportunity. The whole reason why people want to come to the United States is because of jobs. In order for immigration reform to work we must have a strong, workable employment verification system in place. If Congress can ensure that only authorized job seekers gain employment in this country, then we remove the incentive for illegal immigration. Workers who cannot get jobs cannot afford to stay in the United States illegally. This immigration bill works towards making E- Verify mandatory. I agree with this goal, but as a former small business owner familiar with this process, I also recognize that this bill fails to strengthen protections against the fraudulent use of identifiers used in the employment process--particularly Social Security cards and Social Security numbers. Small business owners by nature do a lot. They mop floors, make sales, greet customers, do the accounting, set up computers, and pay the bills. However, you should not have to ask a business owner to act as a customs agent and determine if the government issued documents presented to them are authentic. One recent study suggests that the current E-Verify error rate for unauthorized workers is 54 percent. This is attributed to the fact that even though the system says that a particular person is legal, there is no way for the employer to know for certain if that worker is really who they claim to be.

The proposal before us attempts to address this problem through a photo-matching tool. However, the verification system does not have photos for the more than 60 percent of Americans who do not have a U.S. passport and relies on States to be able to provide driver's license records on a voluntary basis. This legislation allows a fundamental flaw in the E-Verify system to exist, making it even more difficult for employers to ensure that the people they hire are lawful. Several of my colleagues have filed amendments to fix these problems. I know that this is something Senator Portman has worked on extensively and I support his efforts. Unfortunately, the necessary changes have not been made to E-Verify and it is difficult for me to support a bill knowing that it fails to provide small business owners with the tools they need to efficiently and accurately verify the identity of new employees.

Another draw to the United States happens to be the Federal welfare and tax benefits that workers receive. My colleague Senator Hatch has been working on several amendments, which I support, that ensures non- citizens do not benefit from these federal programs. Amendment No. 1246 clarifies that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cannot undermine welfare reform so that non-citizens receive welfare. Additionally, I support Hatch amendment No. 1247 that ensures back taxes are collected for applicants under the Registered Provisional Immigrant program. Failing to fix these draws to our country undermines immigration reform, incentivizes illegal behavior and adds costs to Americans who lawfully pay their taxes.

Second, dependable border security and interior enforcement is crucial to the entire immigration system. I voted for several amendments in this debate which would enact firm border security and enforcement triggers. One lesson from previous immigration efforts is that we cannot reduce illegal immigration without better border security and entry/exit enforcement measures. I cannot support the amended version of the bill because it offers false promises about border security and enforcement measures. I do not understand how the submission of a border security plan makes our nation safe, particularly when current law is not being enforced. Border agents are added but not before the provisions of the underlying bill go into effect. I think the Senate should take a lesson from history. Failing to secure the border and ignoring enforcement will not reduce illegal immigration.

Finally, I think it is also important to discuss why more hasn't been done to fix the underlying bill. The Senate has been on this bill for nearly 3 weeks. In that time, the Senate has only voted on nine amendments. It appears clear

now that few if any more amendments will be considered as we approach final passage which makes it difficult to make some real common sense changes to the bill. I believe that part of the reason is because the bill is being considered as comprehensive reform. Comprehensive bills give everyone reason to oppose the bill. This Senate wants a legitimate fix to immigration. The best way to do that is to focus on it one piece at a time. For example, had more attention been placed on E-Verify as a standalone bill, I am confident that we could find a way to ensure that the program works effectively for small businesses and helps deter the incentive for illegal behavior.

For these reasons I will be voting against final passage. I understand that we all want to fix our immigration system, but I cannot find the resolve to support legislation that misses the mark on so many levels. I am hopeful that more work will be done on fixing our immigration system in the interest of our economy, national security and moral obligations as a country.

Mr. President, today I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the Western Research Institute in Laramie, WY. On July 15 to 17, 2013, the Western Research Institute will be hosting the 50th Annual Petersen Asphalt Research Conference. This highly acclaimed international forum promotes understanding of how asphalt chemistry, physical properties and interactions affect the performance of asphalt applications throughout their life cycle.

In 1963, Dr. J. Claine Petersen organized the first asphalt research conference, emphasizing how the chemical and physical properties of asphalt affect its performance as pavement over time. In 1990, the name of the conference was changed to honor Dr. Petersen's efforts. Dr. Petersen remains an active and vital participant in this event each year.

Partnering with a pavement performance prediction--P3--Symposium has enhanced the ability of the conference to ``dive deep'' on key topics. This year, the topic for the symposium is ``Innovations and Issues in Pavement Preservation and Durability.'' The symposium links researchers, highway officials, producers, and others with a need to understand how asphalts may perform in a given application over time.

The Federal Government typically provides between 75 and 90 percent of the costs of federally supported highway projects. Federally supported asphalt research has been proven to yield substantial cost savings and return on investment. The Petersen Asphalt Research Conference continues to enhance this Federal investment by advancing the understanding and production of state-of-the-art materials, which improve pavement performance, durability, and safety.

The Western Research Institute is a nationally recognized research center for transportation and energy projects. The annual Petersen Asphalt Research Conference is one more example of the institute's leadership in transportation and energy research. Congratulations, again, Western Research Institute, and Wyoming is looking forward to hosting many more in the years to come.

Mr. President, I am proud to submit a resolution today to designate Saturday, July 27, 2013 as National Day of the American Cowboy. My late colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, began the tradition of honoring the men and women known as ``Cowboys'' 9 years ago when he introduced the first resolution to designate the fourth Saturday of July as National Day of the American Cowboy. I am proud to carry on Senator Thomas's tradition.

The national day celebrates the history of Cowboys in America and recognizes the important work today's Cowboys are doing in the United States. The Cowboy Spirit is about honesty, integrity, courage, and patriotism, and Cowboys are models of strong character, sound family values, and good common sense.

Cowboys were some of the first men and women to settle in the American West and they continue to make important contributions to our economy, Western culture and my home State of Wyoming today. This year's resolution designates July 27, 2013, as the National Day of the American Cowboy. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the important role Cowboys play in our country.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the special procedures for certain nonimmigrant agricultural workers included in the underlying immigration bill. I have thoughts about the overall immigration bill which I will share later, but at this time I want to focus on a specific provision in the underlying substitute amendment.

Many farmers and ranchers in this country will tell you that they need reliable, dedicated, and experienced employees to make their operation successful. This could mean contracting with seasonal workers to help a farmer harvest row crops or for my colleague, Chairman Leahy, it could mean finding employees to milk and move cows on dairy farms in Vermont. Agricultural labor in this country comes from a variety of places, and an important source is from temporary and seasonal foreign workers.

Currently, the H-2A program assists employers and foreign workers with visas to perform temporary and seasonal agricultural labor. The most common form of agricultural visa is for seasonal work in harvesting, planting, or maintaining crops. Workers usually get visas to the United States to perform work for several months and then return to their home nations. However, Congress and the administration for decades have recognized a special segment of temporary agricultural workers which are distinct from the others, particularly those industries within agriculture which require workers for longer periods because of the unique work they perform. Under the existing H-2A program, these occupations are recognized by special procedures which allow employees to meet the needs of the specialized industries they serve. Occupations which serve the livestock industry are examples of agricultural jobs that require temporary work for longer periods of time. Herding and managing livestock is an inherently different type of work than that which is performed by other temporary agricultural workers. In many cases, those working as temporary foreign workers in livestock related occupations often have rich cultural histories and family ties to herding which allow them to bring their unique experience to the United States and make significant contributions to our livestock industry.

This inherent challenge is evident in the special procedures which manage nonimmigrant sheepherders in the existing H-2A program. For over 50 years, temporary nonimmigrant agricultural workers have been coming to the United States to work as herders in the sheep and goat industry. Over all these decades, Congress has recognized the special nature of the sheepherding program in immigration law. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters dated July 28, 1987, from U.S. Senator Al Simpson and the response from Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, Commissioner Alan Nelson dated November 4, 1987 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

In this exchange, Senator Simpson, serving as the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and a primary author of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, wrote the administration expressing the continued intent of Congress that the agency and its rules reflect the historical arrangement that sheepherders had within the H-2A program. Senator Simpson highlighted specifically the fact that sheepherders should not be subject to the same return requirements as other nonimmigrant temporary agricultural worker programs. In its response, the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognized the uniqueness of the sheepherder program, its effectiveness operating under these special procedures, and sheepherders should not be subject to the same return requirements as other nonimmigrant agricultural workers.

As a result, the H-2A sheepherder program has operated successfully with little change from when it first started. Currently, the special procedures fall under the authority of the U.S. Department of Labor and have continued to largely reflect the unique needs of sheepherders and other special procedure occupations.

That is why I am pleased this immigration bill includes language which authorizes special procedures for these very agricultural occupations. Section 2232 of the legislation creates the new nonimmigrant agricultural worker program. Within that section 218(A)(i) authorizes ``special nonimmigrant visa processing and wage determination procedures for certain agricultural occupations''. Those occupations include (A) sheepherding and goat herding; (B) itinerant commercial beekeeping and pollination; (C) open range production of livestock; (D) itinerant animal shearing; and, (E) custom combining industries. This is an important step forward in making sure that the nonimmigrant sheepherders and workers in other special occupations can continue to enter our country and work in these unique temporary agricultural jobs.

Particularly important is that the bill provides these special occupations with unique rules on work locations, and housing. This is because unlike the typical temporary nonimmigrant agricultural jobs performed in the United States, the special procedure occupations operate in unique conditions. For example, sheepherders may work alone or in teams monitoring animals graze in remote areas where mobile housing is required. For sheepherders, mobile sheep wagons serve as both a historical symbol and functional shelter from the elements of the range where teams of sheepherders prepare meals, bunk, and keep supplies for livestock. By including the housing language in this section, Congress clearly intends that traditional uses of these housing units continue for special procedure occupations.

I have expressed concerned in recent years about efforts by the U.S. Department of Labor to avoid consulting stakeholders when drafting new policies for special procedure occupations. Bypassing stakeholders has confused employers and employees and led to a number of inconsistent enforcement actions by agency personnel.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter I sent to the Department of Labor on November 14, 2011, as the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee as well as the response I received on February 2, 2012, from Department of Labor Assistant Secretary Jane Oates be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. You will note that previous practice afforded the Secretary some discretion in how it

consults with special procedure stakeholders--specifically, that the ``administrator may consult with affected employer and worker representatives.'' I am pleased that this bill includes text which requires that agencies ``shall'' consult with employer and employee representatives and publish for notice and comment regulations relating to the implementation of the special procedures. This is an important step in ensuring that both employers and employees are heard in the rulemaking process and their concerns are reflected in agency guidance. This consultation will help avoid future confusion amongst the parties, ensure that policies practically serve the program, and that there can be an end to inconsistent enforcement actions.

Mr. President, the occupations represented by these special procedures may affect only a few specific industries but play an important role in protecting the future of American agriculture. I am pleased the immigration bill allows occupations such as sheepherding to operate under the new program as it has operated for the past 50 years. In addition, I am pleased that the legislation recognizes a specific need to address the unique wage, housing, and operational components of the special procedure programs. Finally, it is vital that rulemaking requires agency consultation with stakeholders when drafting policies for the special procedure program. I thank the sponsors of this bill for their work on this section.

Mr. President, I wish to note that on the evening of Monday, June 24, 2013 I missed Senate rollcall vote No. 160 on the motion to invoke cloture on the Leahy substitute amendment No. 1183 due to travel delays. I would like to make clear in the Record that if I were in attendance I would have voted in opposition of the motion to invoke cloture on this measure.

Madam President, for Americans all across the country, June 14 is a very special day--Flag Day. On that day, we all join together to celebrate our shared heritage and our history as a Nation as represented by our American flag.

We each have our own way of showing our respect and our great love for this symbol of our land. Down through the years it has been given many names, from the Stars and Stripes to Old Glory--to the Grand Old Flag that was memorialized in song. It has so many names because of all that it represents. The story of our Flag reminds us of all the sacrifices that have been made over the years so that our Nation would always be strong and free.

Each of us has our own favorite memory of the flag. There are some that we recall from the pictures of the wars that we have seen, or from our remembrance of all the veterans who proudly fought, especially those who died in the service of our Nation. Anyone who has seen a picture of the Marines raising the American flag during the battle of Iwo Jima will never forget that iconic image. It held such meaning to us we created a statue to memorialize that moment. It stands just a short distance from the Capitol, a reminder to us all that freedom is not free. It comes to us at great cost.

Although we celebrate our American flag's proudest moments on this day, we should also remember those days when we did not treat the Stars and Stripes so kindly. There were those who thought to use the flag to promote their own agenda by burning it in the streets. Fortunately, those moments were few and far between and were usually done by people who did not understand the symbolism of the flag or fully appreciate all they had received from their citizenship. Some of them just did not realize how blessed they were to be Americans.

Here in the Senate, we begin each session by joining together to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. As we do, we pledge our loyalty to our country, our determination to do everything we can to make this a better place for us all to live, and most specifically, we pledge our love and appreciation for this ``one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.''

Over the years, our flags have inspired works of art of all kinds, most especially a song with a remarkable story behind its origin. Every American knows what happened on that day when our young Nation was in the midst of a great war. We were fighting for our very right to be free. As the battle waged, a young man, Francis Scott Key, mesmerized by the action of the battle, suddenly caught sight of our Flag, still flying proudly over the fort in the midst of all the gunshot, flame and fire around him. The words he wrote became another symbol of our Nation as he took up his pen to tell us about the sight. From where he stood he could see ``the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, which, gave proof through the night, that our Flag was still there''-- the same Flag that still proudly flies ``o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' The Flag that helped to inspire those words is still on display, one of the most popular attractions at the Smithsonian Institution just down the street from us.

On Flag Day, and every other day, I would encourage all Americans to fly their flag and to talk to their children and grandchildren about the meaning of the flag and the history of our Nation. The great gifts we have received of ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' should never become just words to us. They are our birthright as Americans and they should encourage us to continue to remember the sacrifices that have been made in our name. In a very real sense, Flag Day is a call to express the great pride we feel for this country and those who served in our Armed Forces--our great heroes of the past--and those who continue to serve our Nation all over the world--our heroes of the present.

I have often mentioned here on the floor what it means to me to be a grandfather and the thrill of holding the next generation of your family in your arms. Well, my granddaughter continues to share with us one of those special moments we all need to experience so we do not forget the legacy we have received from our citizenship. Every time she sees an American Flag she pauses, looks at it with an understanding that surpasses her years, and with a smile of pride and admiration, says ``God bless America!'' As she says those special words she looks around at everyone near her, expecting them to join her in expressing that sentiment--which we do. She is only 2 years old

and she is already learned to do that all by herself--which makes her twos not so terrible after all.

Friday morning, as I reflected about Flag Day I found myself reading the words of Lloyd Ogilvie who served as our Senate Chaplain for many, many years. In his book, One Quiet Moment, he wrote ``Thomas Jefferson inscribed in his memorial God, who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a Nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?''

On Flag Day and throughout the year, those are good words of advice to consider and put into practice. We must never forget that all we have received from our citizenship ultimately comes from God. Then it is up to us to share those great blessings with all those we meet as we work together to make our Nation a better place not only for us, but for our children and our grandchildren so they will never lose their fondness and appreciation for this great land of ours.

I can think of no better way to celebrate Flag Day than to join with my granddaughter in her recognition of the flag with an exuberant ``God bless America!'' Yes! God bless America and God bless us all. May our future be as blessed as our past.

Madam President, I wish to take a moment of the Senate's time to call your attention to the retirement of one of the true heroes of my home town of Gillette, WY. For 30 years our local basketball team, the Camels, has been coached by one of the finest high school coaches of all time--Mike Curry.

Mike has been doing a good job for so long we thought he would be on the bench on the Camels' side of the court forever. That is why it took us all by surprise when Coach Curry decided to retire from coaching at the end of this past season.

Over the years Coach Curry has been more than our coach--he's been a Wyoming tradition. Ask anyone who is a Camels fan who has been responsible for their success and every one will tell you our secret advantage has been the coaching ability and basketball knowledge of Coach Curry.

His concern for each of his players, and his great love of Campbell County High School, has been evident for all the years of his service to the people of Gillette. It shows itself in the hearts of those he has coached and in the lives of those he has worked with as their teacher. He has always been one to lead by quiet but focused example and that important quality of his has made him a role model that has helped to provide guidance and direction to all those with whom he has worked.

If you ask the members of all those championship teams that played for Coach Curry, they will tell you that they learned some important lessons from him that helped to shape their lives. Thanks to him they came to realize what high expectations, teamwork, making good, thoughtful decisions and refusing to ever give up on a goal can mean to the pursuit of a difficult challenge. Ask his current players and they will tell you what it has meant to play for Coach Curry and to receive the legacy of success from his past efforts that helped to get them inspired and motivated right from the start. They knew before they even made the team how successful Coach Curry's Camels had been and that made them ask more from themselves than anyone else would have ever thought was possible for them to achieve.

Coach Curry is now ending a remarkable career. In 30 years he has collected 605 wins and 12 State titles. If we were to ask him which one was sweeter--the first win or the last--I have a feeling he would tell us that they were all special because each one was made possible by a team of young men committed to winning and to each other.

For my family, we will always remember Coach Curry for the impact he had on our son, Brad. He also touched the rest of our family as we watched the Camels play for and learn from a very strong, steady coach. For the community of Gillette, we will always remember the key role Coach Curry played in strengthening Gillette's sense of community and increasing our sense of pride in our school and those who wore its colors.

Congratulations and good luck, Coach Curry. You did a great job and you can now look back on your coaching career with the satisfaction that comes from a job well done. You can also look ahead to some new adventures as this chapter of your life comes to a close and you begin a new one. God bless.

Madam President, the Marketplace Fairness Act is about States' rights and giving States the right to decide to collect or not collect taxes that are already owed. Critics have claimed that we are creating a new Internet sales tax, that businesses would have to remit sales taxes to 9,600 different tax jurisdictions, and that today's software simply isn't capable of helping businesses collect sales tax.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. On the issue of creating a new tax or imposing new taxes, we made it clear in section 3(d) of the legislation

that nothing in the bill encourages a State to impose sales and use taxes on any goods or services not subject to taxation prior to the date of enactment. This includes imposing sales and use taxes on financial transactions or services and any other good or service that a State may be considering.

We also made it clear that nothing in this legislation limits the existing authority of States to impose State and local sales and use tax on and collect such taxes directly from the purchaser. As a former mayor and State legislator, I strongly favor allowing States the authority to require sales and use tax collection from retailers on all sales for each State that chooses to do so. We need to implement a plan that will allow States to collect revenue using mechanisms already approved by their local leaders.

I would like to ask my friend Senator Alexander to help me respond to some of these concerns because he has been vocal about States' rights and that this has nothing to do with taxing the Internet.

Yes, we were deliberate by including language in the Marketplace Fairness Act to authorize States to require remote sellers to collect taxes that are already owed under current law. It was not our intention to urge States and localities to impose other taxes not associated with sales and use taxes.

Another issue that my colleagues and I want to make clear is the reason we included language in the perfecting amendment recognizing tribal sovereignty. Tribes that have adopted sales taxes have the same concerns as States about the collection of taxes on remote sales. During the drafting and consideration of this legislative concept in 2005, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and I began working with the National Congress for American Indians and the National Governors' Association to find common ground to allow tribal governments the opportunity to participate in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, SSUTA. After 2 years of deliberation, tribal government legislative language was included in the Main Street Fairness Act bill introduction in 2007.

Although not included in the introduced version of the Marketplace Fairness Act this year, tribal governments requested the ability to collect sales and use tax if they choose to participate in the alternative system, not the SSUTA. Those tribal governments who participate in a streamlined system would agree to the same rules as the States who participate in that system. At this time, the Senate bill includes tribal governments in the ``State'' definition. Although some may disagree, I do encourage my House colleagues working on the Marketplace Fairness Act to further review this specific policy issue when the bill is debated in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is a very important issue that Senator Heitkamp has experience with, and I would ask her to share her comments with our colleagues. I also want to say yet again how grateful, and lucky, we are to be working with Senator Heitkamp on this issue. She has been working to solve this problem for even longer than I have, and I want to ask her for her thoughts on the legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for the Marketplace Fairness Act in just over an hour or so from now. I have said many times over the past few weeks--and, in fact, I have been saying it for the past 12 years as I have worked on this issue, but it is worth repeating--this bill is about fairness. It is about leveling the playing field between the brick and mortar and online companies and it is about collecting a tax that is already due. It is not about raising taxes, taxing the Internet, or taxing Internet access.

This bill in general, and this bill in particular, has grabbed the attention of Members of the Senate and their constituents back home. Unfortunately, the misinformation that is being disseminated by many has added confusion and anxiety about what the bill does and does not do. For example, the Americans For Tax Reform sent me a detailed letter last week asking many questions. It appears the letter was not meant to find resolution or a path forward with this issue but ultimately to confuse my colleagues prior to tonight's vote. Senator Alexander and I responded to the 16 questions in order to provide clarity for the organization and its members.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two letters to which I just referred.

I would encourage everyone to read the bill. It is short-- 11 pages. You don't see many like this. You can see through that; right? It is a bill you can read from beginning to end and you can understand what it does, which is very unusual for Washington. It is not like a lot of bills that simply make changes to other bills and require you get hold of those other bills and read them to figure out what is going on. This bill is straightforward.

If a State meets the simplification requirements outlined in the bill, it may choose to require collection of sales taxes that are already due. Congress is not forcing States to do anything. And if States do act, they are collecting taxes already due by consumers-- folks such as you and me.

One of the issues that received much attention while debating this bill the past few weeks is the issue on audits. There is some concern small businesses will be subjected to onerous and time-consuming audits by State and local governments if those governments start requiring they collect sales taxes on these remote sales. It is critical to keep in mind that sellers that have under $1 million in remote sales in 1 year are not required to collect and

would not be subject to an audit from any out-of-State government.

In order to obtain authority to require remote sellers to collect, and therefore even have the potential of being audited by remote governments, States either must join the Streamlined Sales Tax and Use Agreement--and I will refer to that as the Streamlined States--or they can simplify their tax structure by creating a single entity within the State responsible for all State and local taxes and use tax administration and audits; establishing a single audit statewide; limiting collection to a uniform State and local tax base; allowing a single sales and use tax return; and providing the program to figure the tax with no liability to the retailer and, therefore, no need for an audit.

For States that join the Streamlined Sales Tax and Use Agreement, a remote business would only be subject to a single audit for participating streamlined States, eliminating the possibility of audits by local governments and the probability of an audit.

For States that do not join the streamlined States but choose to participate in the alternative simplification system outlined in the bill, a business would also be limited to a single audit, per State, per year.

Practically speaking, there is no possibility that streamlined States or non-streamlined States would ever be able to perform significant audits of remote sellers.

Today, the States audit less than 1 percent of retailers inside their borders. Auditing remote sellers would require additional resources and travel and is simply not a realistic possibility.

For audits that are performed under the new system, the Marketplace Fairness Act demands that States adopt uniform audit procedures which would simplify and reduce business administrative expenses.

Sellers who use the certified sales tax administration software would either not be audited or would have limited scope audits to determine that the software was properly installed.

In addition to the audit protection the Marketplace Fairness Act provides, participating States are required to establish and maintain an accessible database of geographically based tax rates and tax base information to make it easier for remote sellers to collect taxes. These states are also required to hold those sellers harmless for errors in the database.

Compared to today's sales tax administration, where sellers are expected to research and comply with tax rate and tax base information and to understand jurisdictional boundaries without help from the state and local governments, the Marketplace Fairness Act dramatically reduces administrative burden and audit risk.

Some opposed to this bill go so far as to say that this potential overreach of State and local governments will lead to taxation without representation. The Marketplace Fairness Act includes significant benefits for remote sellers, including limits on audits, liability protections, and tax and administrative simplification. The tax is imposed on the consumer by the State where they reside pursuant to tax rates and a tax base established by the State and local governments. This serves as the ultimate check on excessive taxation. Because this tax is imposed on the consumer, there is no danger of taxation without representation.

Another concern raised by a few of my colleagues is that businesses will leave the United States, set up shop outside our borders, and sell into the United States, presumably only because of a sales tax collection requirement. It is important to note that States currently enforce collection of State taxes against foreign businesses with no physical presence in the United States, and have a number of methods to compel collection by foreign sellers, including liens, levies, and seizure of assets. The Marketplace Fairness Act treats foreign corporations the same as it does domestic corporations. All online retailers that make over $1 million in remote sales, regardless of where the retailer is located, must collect and remit sales tax to States that require it.

I would say this. No one works on a bill such as this, works on it 12 years, as a popularity contest. You have to be doing what is right. I have listened to the people, talked to the people, and know this is something that is going to be necessary to keep Main Street in business so people will have the ability to go to the store and make a selection and try the goods, feel the goods, and know it is right and that retailer is not going to have to worry about the person using their iPhone to get the barcode and order it from somebody else because of a sales tax difference. That is what will keep Main Street viable and the downtowns making it look like there is a growing community.

In conclusion, I thank everyone associated with this bill for their hard work and efforts in getting us to this point. I thank Senators Alexander, Durbin, and Heitkamp for their unwavering support of this bill and moving it forward in the Senate. I thank all of the cosponsors of the bill. I very much appreciate their support. I thank all the businesses, the trade groups, the constituents who provided constructive feedback as we have attempted to address, as best we can, all the concerns that have been raised.

I thank all of the staff who have worked on this issue--on my staff, my legislative director Randi Reid. She has worked on this as long as I have. She is probably, on the Hill if not the country, the expert on marketplace fairness or any of the other titles this kind of bill may have had.

I also thank my tax counsel, Eric Oman; Corey Tellez, Beth Cook, Dena Morris, Reema Dodin, MJ Kenny; Ben Garmisa on Senator Durbin's Staff; Allison Martin, Michael Merrell, and David Cleary on Senator Alexander's staff; Jillian Fitzpatrick on Senator Heitkamp's staff; and all of the staffs of the bill's cosponsors and all of the people in offices that have been taken into the process so we could get the process to work. It is always a team effort, and it takes more than ones who are just leading the effort. I know there are an immeasurable number of hours they have put in on this issue and I thank all of them for their hard work.

I look forward to continuing to work with my House colleagues, Congressman Womack, Congresswoman Speier, Congressman Conyers, and Congressman Welch, as they push forward to the House passage of the Marketplace Fairness Act.

I also thank Senator Durbin for all of his energy on this bill, the perspective he was able to bring to the bill and his tremendous ability to communicate the issues. I thank Senator Alexander. We were working on a much bigger bill until Senator Alexander lent some expertise to make this a much simpler one, one that is completely readable and only 11 pages.

I think that covers most of the objections. There will be some from the States that do not charge a sales tax at all because if their businesses exceed $1 million in on-line sales, then they will have to. If they sell into States that collect the sales tax, they would have to participate in the collection of that.

As we push forward with House passage of the Marketplace Fairness Act and as we finish in the Senate tonight, as I am confident we will, I thank all who are participating in it, particularly the people of courage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank all of the people who have participated, particularly Senator Durbin who has helped to coalesce things, Senator Alexander who came up with the idea for having a shorter bill, only 11 pages--never see it in the Senate--written in plain English, and it is States rights.

This does not cause the Federal Government to do anything. What it allows is for the States to do what they have already passed laws on. I can see this from the standpoint of an individual. I know in Wyoming if you buy something on the Internet and you are not charged a tax, you are supposed to fill out a form and send it in. That is a difficult thing to do, hard to even keep track of. This will eliminate that problem of individuals wanting to pay the tax but not knowing exactly how to do it.

I know it from the standpoint of a small businessman, if they had the experience of somebody coming in, trying on the goods, finding out exactly what they want, the color, the style, the feel, everything, and then ordering it on the Internet. The even more ironic part of it is when they have a problem with it, they bring it back to the local retailer to fix it.

I have seen it from the standpoint of a mayor. I know in Wyoming at least 30 percent and up to 70 percent of the revenue of the municipalities comes from the sales tax. That is on a declining basis at the moment. That is not only what they run the city's streets and snow removal on; a lot of the police, the fire protection, even education is affected by the sales tax.

I have seen it from the standpoint of a legislator as well. I know when we passed those taxes, we did not say: Okay, we want to discriminate against the local business that pays the property tax, hires people locally, and participates in all the community stuff. If you are out of State, we are going to let you off the hook.

No legislator ever passed a bill like that. This is one that corrects all of those things and brings fairness to the marketplace. I think it will make a significant difference, particularly in communities where they will still be able to help out some of the charitable organizations and activities that would have to go by the wayside if this bill were not to pass.

I look forward to working with people on the House side. I wish to thank Senator Durbin, Senator Alexander, and Senator Heitkamp, particularly, for all of their efforts on this bill. I thank Senator Heitkamp for her persistence over 22 years and knowing the intricacies of how it works on the Canadian border, as well as having been involved in the original case where the Supreme Court challenged us to fix this problem.

Today we have a chance to fix this problem. I ask my colleagues to vote for the bill.

I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Maine, and wholeheartedly agree with her conclusion that we must ensure that the Marketplace Fairness Act is correctly implemented. I have spent many years working on this legislation and strongly believe that leveling the playing field for Main Street businesses is the right thing to do. We must implement the solution to that problem in a reasonable manner, and I agree with the Senator that the 1-year delay she proposes is appropriate to do this.

I think both the proposals made by my friend from Maine are commonsense items that will improve the Marketplace Fairness Act. As this bill moves through the legislative process, I suggest my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and in both Chambers--adopt a 1- year delay in implementation and prohibit States from beginning to exercise their new authority to require the collection of sales taxes during the holiday season.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from North Dakota for her comments and her involvement for over 20 years. I feel like a newcomer, with just the 12 years I have been trying to get this passed. Wyoming has recognized the need for it and has had the desire for it. We were one of the first to join the streamlined sales tax effort, and I think we were joined by a number of our surrounding States. The purpose of that, of course, was to make it simpler so it would be easier for people to collect the tax.

I wish to congratulate the Senators from Maine for putting forward what I consider to be kind of a phase-in part. Of course, there are a lot of people who would like to have it done a lot faster than that, but this would allow 1 year for people to get their program up and running. Part of that time would be taken by the free software that has to come from the States. It will take them a while to get that together, although everybody is hearing from eBay a little bit, and eBay already has one of those sales tax programs. It costs 15 bucks a month if you want to collect sales tax in the States, so it isn't like it is something impossible.

I know L.L.Bean is going through a major computer switchover right now, so they know how difficult that is, and if it were compounded at the same time by having the sales tax collected, it could create some difficulties. In checking around, we have gotten the suggestion there be 1 year allowed before they had to start collecting the taxes.

There is another small provision that says from October 31 through December 31 there wouldn't be a conversion because that is the Christmas season. In retail, that is the big season. If they can't concentrate on their customers at that point in time, they are not going to make their money. It makes the whole year just in those couple of months there. So there is an exclusion the program wouldn't go into effect during that period of time.

So there is this kind of a phase-in for everybody to get everything ready. I know it is a lot more time than what States would like to have. They would like to begin collecting the taxes in 90 days, if they were able to get their program in place in 90 days. But we think that is reasonable. They brought that to the floor, but it was objected to even getting to debate it. So we don't get to vote on that.

Around here a lot of times people say: It is a filibuster if you don't get to, and if there is cloture, then everybody ought to vote against cloture until everybody gets their amendments. How can you do your amendments if one person can object--and has. I think there would probably be three or four who would object, maybe six or eight who would object. But it is hard to do the amendments, and that should definitely not be the reason for anybody to vote against final cloture on this bill and get it enacted. Hopefully, we can still get some amendments through the process. Anything that is germane after cloture can still be voted on.

I know there are a lot of proposals out there. Some of those proposals, of course, deal with something other than what would be germane to this bill. There would be major changes in the tax structure in other ways. We have tried to keep this to an 11-page bill. We tried to keep it simple, keep it to one topic. It is something anybody can read and understand. In fact, I don't remember a bill that has had language quite as clear.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for all his concentration. He looked at the 80-plus page bill we had, which had a lot more stuff in it, and said why don't we make this into a States rights bill. Once we took that approach to it, it made all the language much simpler. We just needed some basics for them to have to participate, and so that is why it is an 11-page bill. We will not see an 11-page bill come through here very often. I would guess some of the amendments being proposed--that have nothing to do with the collection of sales tax--are probably more extensive in pages than what this bill is.

We are hoping people will stick to germane and relevant--or at least relevant; that is a little broader than germane, and we can do some amendments.

But if there is going to be an objection--and I was just in a meeting where I was assured this is going to happen, and there is going to be an objection every time, no matter what the amendment is--I am very disappointed in that.

I do want to point out there is a small seller exemption. If you are a retailer and you do less than $1 million of sales online during a year, you don't come under this bill. You don't do anything different than what you are doing right now. For a lot of small businesses, $1 million would be a lot of money. I have heard some proposals that maybe we go to $10 million or $20 million. That affects some big retailers that don't want to do it. But to small retailers, $1 million is a lot of sales when it is just the ones that are done online. We are not talking about their total sales--what they do in their stores. We are just talking about the ones where they put up their Web site and they get orders and they ship out those orders. If that exceeds $1 million, the next year they would have to start collecting it.

So not only, with the Collins amendment, would there be 1 year built into the time before they would have to start doing it, there would also be another year before they would hit the $1 million, and if they do not hit the $1 million, then they have another year and another year and another year until they do. Of course, having been a small businessman, I am pulling for all of them to exceed $1 million.

Most small businesses I know would be so tickled to hit $1 million they would think maybe this wouldn't be such a bad deal. This is definitely giving some emphasis to online sales. It is much easier now to get a Web site. In

fact, the Small Business Administration has been going from State to State to State and providing people who will do free Web sites for people who attend a seminar on how to do online sales. I commend the Small Business Administration for doing that. I think it has helped a number of businesses that haven't been able to expand beyond the few thousand dollars they are selling in their own stores to increase their sales. We hope everybody gets to exceed $1 million.

There is another part of that $1 million that is kind of interesting. If you are a nursery--and we heard an example of a nursery last night-- and you are doing big sales, the chances are pretty good some of those big sales are to other nurseries. If a product is sold to somebody else to be resold, there isn't a sales tax. So that wouldn't count in the $1 million.

We did hear an example during the press conference of a contractor in a State and the other contractor got all his stuff online and from out of State and on a $150,000 contract was able to undercut him by 10 percent. It was just a $150,000 project--a category that small businessmen specialize in--but he was beat out by an out-of-State person who didn't pay sales tax on the products they were bringing into the State and using in construction.

So we do have a small seller exemption. There is also simplification in the bill, and I would be happy to go through that. We haven't had any suggestions for more simplification, at least from those who understand what the simplification is. One of the reasons that is fairly simple now is because computers have come a long way. I don't know how many people here have purchased something online, but when you do, you put in your address where you want something shipped, and when you go over to see what the bill is going to be, not only will there be the price of the product, but there will be a sales tax. In a number of States, people have volunteered to collect it, and for the number of people who have volunteered to collect it, we really appreciate that.

I cannot believe that Senator Collins' request to bring up an amendment that would allow a phase-in, that would give everybody extra time, would be objected to, but, as I said, when we checked we found out that everything is going to be objected to, which will bring us to a cloture vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the Senator from Oklahoma and have enjoyed working with him the entire time he has been here. He brings up a lot of important issues, part of which is the financial shape our country is in right now. I noticed his comment that we are the best-looking horse in the glue factory and so people are pouring money into the United States.

I went to one of the bond issue auctions where we and some people from other countries were willing to take a negative interest rate in order to buy our bonds, which means they think we are the best hope there is out there. But that could change pretty quickly, and 5.88 percent is the average, which changes to $880 billion a year, which is a lot more than we spend on defense. So we need to be looking at some of those issues.

It is difficult to get a bill up around here. It is difficult to get a vote on an amendment around here. I know, because I have been working on the bill that is on the floor for 12 years, hoping to get an opportunity on the floor. So I would love to give Senators all the amendments they want; I was just hoping their amendments might be relevant--not germane, necessarily, relevant--to what we are doing; that it would be something about the sales tax collection. Those ought to come up. But when amendments are brought up as a result of frustration because people haven't been able to bring them up before-- or some have even been brought up before and voted down--I would hope they would kind of constrain themselves on trying to make those an amendment to this bill.

Yes, there ought to be an easier way to get things going around here, and I think that would be in kind of a bipartisan way. This is a bipartisan bill. It is even bicameral. We have Republicans and Democrats on the House end working with us, conferring with us, hopefully, so something can be done, and here, of course, it is Republicans and Democrats--more than half of the people--who are supporting this bill.

As I said, I have worked for 12 years to get the bill to this point, and it usually gets blocked at the committee level. This time it didn't go to committee. I prefer bills to go to committee, but if we can't get them to committee and we get an opportunity to bring one up, we do.

One of the difficulties we have here is there are a lot of things that have to be done in the Senate, there are a lot of things people want to have done in the Senate, and there are a lot of things that have tremendous appeal throughout the United States or at least among certain people.

It is my understanding the next thing we are going to go to is water, and if my colleagues want to talk about a sensitive issue in the West, talk about water. My State gets an average of 16 inches--yes, that is right, just 16 inches--of rainfall a year. Other States get 16 inches in a month. We are considered high desert, and we are conscious of our water. So we will be interested in the water bill.

Following that, I think, is the immigration bill which has gotten a lot of publicity. There are a lot of people working on it, and there are a lot of opinions that I think are actually being worked into some kind of a bill.

Again, if we had a process where people could bring their bills up step by step, we could probably go through with a lot more. Because one of the complaints around here is bills often wind up to be a couple thousand pages long and it is hard to digest that. It is hard to bring the American people along on it. But the bill we are talking about here is an 11-page bill, and I think it is probably one of the most readable bills people have ever had to work on. An 11-page bill shouldn't probably take very long around here, but it takes just as long as any other bill. So I am hoping for this one chance we have to shore up some of the State, county, and town revenues, particularly since they are not going to be able to come to the Federal Government for money.

In fact, the Federal Government is taking money away from them right now and is talking about even more ways of taking money away from the States, the towns, the counties, and the municipalities.

What we did recently in that sequester bill is we took 5.3 percent out of the Federal Government's payment in lieu of taxes. They know they own properties in the States that, if they were in private hands, would result in property tax, but they are in the Federal Government's hands, and the States can't tax the Federal Government. But the Federal Government said, We know that is wrong, so we will pay a tax. The Federal Government decided what that tax would be and they don't raise it, so it has no relationship to the actual value of the property and what that property would raise if it were in private hands, which is why there are some appeals around here to sell off Federal property. But this year the Federal Government said, Well, yes, we owe that, and we haven't been increasing it so it is way below what the property tax ought to be, but we are going to cut you out of another 5.3 percent. I know people across America didn't have a choice of saving 5.3 percent of the money before sending it to the Federal Government, but the Federal Government is saying, For the taxes we owe, we are going to take 5.3 percent out of it first. So there are a lot of things there that are going to infringe on States and counties and municipalities.

I used to be a mayor so I know what the money is going to be used for and I know an essential part of that comes from sales tax--in States that have sales tax--and in those States the property tax is usually pretty low. But if they continue to lose revenue on the remote sales that take their revenue away, they are going to have to probably raise some of those taxes. I know there is a desire to force them to reduce some tax in exchange for whatever tax they get from this, but they have been losing tax and they are going to be losing tax.

This is a States rights bill. That is how we got it shortened down so much. The States actually have to take some action in order to be able to do this. I hope we don't try to dictate to the States what they do with whatever money they raise from this. But, again, that is a possibility on an amendment.

I am sorry the Senator from Oklahoma isn't on the Finance Committee anymore because there is the possibility, as we are doing tax reform right now, to talk about a number of these things he brought up, including gamblers who get to deduct their losses and the 501(C)(6) corporations that are tax-free. We need to be talking about whether some of those things should be tax-free, what their purpose is, where the money goes, how much is in the private sector, and what it is used for. Of course, I have been on the Finance Committee and I have been going through these discussions on reforming the taxes, and every time we get into it, we think of a lot more things we could be spending money on. So sometimes we talk about raising the tax instead of making it fairer and simpler. The two things can actually be separate. The policy of how we spend the money is supposed to be appropriation and authorization from the committees. The committees say what they think the money ought to be spent on and then the appropriators are supposed to stay within those limits. But that isn't the way it exactly happens.

If we are going to have fairer and simpler taxes, they are going to have to be fairer and simpler. I know Senator Wyden has a principle that is a

one-pager. That would be nice, if it were only one page to fill out for our taxes. Of course, that means getting rid of a lot of things we have come to take as standard policy in our taxes. Again, a lot of those could be handled another way and they could be more forthright and more honest on what exactly we are doing, and probably fairer to the recipients of some of the tax expenditures we get.

I appreciate the amendments brought up by the Senator. I hope others will come and at least explain their amendments, but I hope they will try to stick to amendments that actually affect the sales tax provisions. If we try to put on some other kind of taxes or take off some other kind of taxes, we are actually getting into the Ways and Means in the House which has the right to start all of these kinds of issues, and they call that a blue slip. That means they object to it and it is done for. So if we end up with one of those for this bill, what it actually does is kind of kill the bill.

I am hoping after all the years of work that we don't kill the bill, particularly since we found a way to simplify it and make it a States rights situation, so States have to take some action and so the States understand the action they are taking. I am hoping we can do that. But I appreciate those explanations and perhaps there are some of those that somebody won't object to. I don't object.

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

Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments on what has transpired here this afternoon and for the last several days. One of the toughest things to do is to pass a bill. One of the easiest things to do is to kill a bill. You can do that simply by creating some confusion. Around here you can do it by applying some rules and suggesting that part of the process could be backtracked and done differently and done over.

It is pretty hard to get a bill to the floor. It doesn't happen very much. It could happen easier, it could happen more often. When you get one here, there are still a lot of ways to kill a bill and that is kind of what we are seeing because there are some people who say: Gee, if we don't get our amendment, we are going to kill the bill. We are going to vote against cloture, which is the only way to move on in the Senate because we like debate, we like pretty much unlimited debate.

Debate can be constructive. There are things that need to be done on bills. I heard several good ideas. They have been objected to, so we are not going to get to actually vote on those. But one thing as an accountant that I want to bring up is this thing about audits, because that can loom pretty strong for a business. Audit is something that we know from the IRS and it is very scary. But the audits they are talking about are not going to happen to nearly the extent they think they are going to happen. Somebody will have to be avoiding the sales tax entirely and they will have to have a very strong suspicion that they exceed $1 million online in a year before they will ever audit because it costs money to audit. Especially it would cost money if you went over the border to another State to audit. Then there are some difficulties with being able to collect what is discovered in the audit. But it is only done when something seems very wrong.

One of my clients I worked with for 10 years had big sales in the oilfield--lots of sales in the oilfield. We got audited on sales tax once in 10 years. I am pleased to say they did not find anything. It took them 2 weeks to do the audit and that was a very big business. It was very technical stuff. Of course they looked at it because a lot of them are very big sales. There are some confusing things in the sales too. But you have to have an audit in there for a little bit of honesty. So that is why that is in there. But it is not going to be something the States are going to jump on because it has some costs.

If you are a government that wants to do audits--I remember when I was in the Wyoming legislature they used to talk about how much return they got out of their audit. They would get $20 or $30 to the $1 of cost. Consequently they used that as an argument for hiring even more auditors because they would find a lot more money. The intent of an audit is not to find $1 for every dollar that is expended. It is to find $20 or $30, somebody who is violating the law in a big way so you can afford the cost of the audit. That of course keeps all of the people a little bit more honest. So audit has to be in here but audit is being blown out of

proportion, probably so we can try to kill the bill. I hope that is not the intention.

They talked about needing to go to committee. I have gotten a couple of hearings on this in 12 years but have never been able to get a markup in the committee. This process has gotten this bill to the floor and I am hoping everybody will listen to their retailers and help out on this bill and get it finished. I can tell you, being in charge of this bill and one of the drafters of this bill, it is not a popularity contest you are winning. It is just the right thing to do. It is what the States need if they are going to have the revenue to provide all of the services that are in the municipalities--whether it is police or fire protection or cleaning the streets or whatever is done there, plus all of the charitable work people in the communities do too, because that is the sense of community they have so they contribute. All of that is going to dry up.

If you ask your municipality how much money they get out of sales tax, I think the minimum one of them will say is 30 percent. Probably the maximum is 70 percent. But that is a lot of budget and that is declining as the Internet grows and the sales happen without the tax. So I hope people will help pass this bill and get this into effect. It is only an 11-page bill. That is a miracle around here. It is possible for people to read the bill.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and appreciate the comments he made. He is new to the Senate but he obviously read the bill. I am very impressed with the comments he made. I hope people will help pass this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Maine on his speech. It was a tremendous history lesson. I have enjoyed getting to know him a little bit since he got here. I had quite an interesting surprise yesterday. He came to my office and he brought an American flag, all framed. The way he got it, there was a desk his great-aunt had. The desk was probably made in the 1860s. But behind one of the drawers they found this flag. It was a flag with 44 stars. Wyoming was the 44th State. So he presented this framed flag to me. Incidentally, that was only the flag of the United States for a 6-year period. Then some other States came in and we added them. It has an interesting arrangement of stars on it too, because the 44 stars do not fit in a nice even pattern unless you did four rows with 11 in a row. That changes the dimensions of the flag considerably.

I appreciate his consideration on that. I appreciate the consideration he has given to pieces of legislation that I have seen him work on. We do not agree on all of those pieces of legislation, but it is nice to have the concern and the thought and the process for getting things done that he brings to the Senate. That is very nice.

I too want to encourage my colleagues if they have amendments to bring them down. That is what we say this process is about. This is an amendment process on the floor, which everybody has asked for. We are doing it. So we need the amendments. A number of people have talked to me about different parts they had a potential concern about. I hope we solved their concern by actually looking at the wording in the bill. This is not a very difficult bill to read. Sometimes we do ones that are a couple of thousand pages. This one is 11 pages. I do not think there is anybody who will not be capable of reading the bill. Unlike most of the bills, this is in pretty normal language, rather than some of the conforming language that sometimes results around here.

I think most of the problems retailers should have with this have been taken care of. One that the nonsales-tax States talk about, and the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, also mentioned, the people in those States still will not pay a sales tax. But if you happen to be one of the people selling into other States, and you sell a tremendous volume into other States, then under this bill you will be expected to collect and remit the sales tax, as any retailer in the States that have sales tax.

There is an exemption. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, asked us to have a compromise. That is why we have the exemption in there. It is a compromise. We started with it in the Senate as being a $500,000 exemption. The House folks convinced us--as I mentioned, this is a bipartisan, Republican and Democrat, bicameral, House and Senate effort. The House convinced us that $1 million was a more reasonable figure, and they gave some good reasons for it. Now $1 million would give any small businessman quite a few years, perhaps--I hope it is a short period of time, but it should give them quite an amount of time before they had to adjust to this, because they have to sell $1 million on line in a year before they have to start collecting the tax the next year.

In a State where there is a sales tax and the people are selling in the brick-and-mortar store which we are trying to help out with this bill, they collect from every person from the first dime of sales. So we have given a little bit of a break to particularly the nontax States, and to those working on line that are small businesses to continue this effort to grow the Internet.

Of course, we are hoping a lot of our businesses in our States will get to that million-dollar mark. But here is the status on the million- dollar mark. We are told that if we reduced that to $150,000 it would only affect less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the businesses in the United States--not very many. They are starting to be a relatively big business when they are doing $1 million on line. This does not count their in-store sales. This is just their on-line sales. So I hope the other States that have had some difficulty with that will realize that is a pretty liberal mark we have gone to.

Of course, I know a lot of people are getting a lot of correspondence from eBay. eBay, in the 12 years I have been working on this bill, has consistently opposed it, even though they appeared almost up to the time we were ready to do the bill to be in agreement with some of the things that were in the bill.

Incidentally, that is when we had a considerably bigger bill. It was about 80 pages long. This one we changed. The main difference is now there are States rights, which there should have always been. That is the way it is in the Constitution. This is a States rights bill. That reduces the length of it considerably.

The million-dollar proposal is to give people time to adjust and collect. Incidentally, there is kind of a phase-in in this. Some people say, why don't we have kind of a phase-in? Well, we have 90 days. We agreed to do 6 months so people could gear up for it.

Besides that 6 months, the States are going to have to provide free software to be able to do the tax, so that when they put in a ZIP Code for where they are sending the product, they will automatically know the tax. They talk about 9,600 tax jurisdictions. Well, in this there are only 46 different tax jurisdictions. Nevertheless, they put in that ZIP Code and they will know what the tax is and have no liability whatsoever because that falls on the people who provided them with this free software. This makes a huge difference to States, counties, and municipalities.

I used to be a mayor. I was a mayor of a town that tripled in size during the 8 years I was mayor. Had it not been for sales tax, we would have been broke. I checked around to see how much towns and municipalities rely on the sales tax for their source of revenue. I was shocked. About the minimum that I run into is 30 percent. There are quite a few more than I ever thought that rely on sales tax for 70 percent of what they do.

So what does a municipality do with its money? Well, let's see, a lot of them have schools they have to take care of,

they have law enforcement they have to take care of, they have firefighters they have to take care of, some of them have ambulances. So it is all of the first responders essentially they have to take care of.

If you are in the northern States, as I was, you have to do it for snow removal. People are really particular about snow removal. Incidentally, Wyoming is still having a little bit of winter. Let's see, today is Wednesday, so that is typically our spring. We have a lot of snow, even in April. That is when most of our moisture comes. We get snow in January too, but that is a real dry snow. In fact, we are such a dry climate that I often tell people that even our rain is only 80 percent moisture. Of course, a lot of it gets sucked up by the air as it falls. A long rainstorm in Wyoming might be 5 minutes. We get a total of 13 inches a year. So we rely on that snow. But if you are a mayor and it snows, you have a major problem, because people expect to be able to get around. I found out that if you plow it to the center, then they cannot make left-hand turns. If it is left on the ground very long and that freezes, then you really have a problem getting it up. If you plow it to the sides, you block in people's driveways and people's cars. That usually upsets them too.

I remember when I was mayor, every once in a while I would get a call from a disgruntled citizen who would complain that I just plowed their driveway back in after they had gotten it open. They wanted to know what I was going to do about it. I would tell them to give me a few minutes. I would get in my car, which always had a snow shovel in the trunk. I would go to their house and start digging it out. Usually when they noticed me, they came running out and said: Oh, no, we did not intend for you to do that. I said: Well, everybody else is doing snow removal. I never got two calls on that. But that is another use for sales tax money. There are many more.

All of the charities in a town usually go to the city council. They say, we have this valuable project. We need some money. Anybody who says they cannot fight city hall probably never tried. A lot of those requests are granted.

But if the sales tax continues to shrink--that is what is happening with it now, State sales tax, county sales tax, local sales tax is all shrinking. If that continues to shrink, they are going to have to start cutting back on things they do. Of course, probably some of the charity things will be some of the first ones to go. It is always hard to tell what the net effect will be. But if they do not have any ability to increase the revenues they have--and most of the towns in Wyoming do not have a chance to increase the taxes they receive. Property taxes are limited by very specific sorts of things, such as how much you can levy for the cemetery, and how much you can levy for a library, and how much you can levy for fire. Those things do not begin to cover the cost of the service that is rendered.

So to the people who are protecting the Internet, I would say it is pretty hard to flush your toilet on the Internet. Sometimes those utilities come into play with these things too. Those taxes are very important to almost all of the communities across the United States, in 46 States. The other four do not have a sales tax.

One of the things people have said is, if they get this extra sales tax, why don't they bring down some of the taxes they currently have? Some of the States and some of the municipalities and counties will do that. I have had several of them tell me that if we could get a little bit more in sales tax, we would do that.

But let me tell you a little problem we have in the Federal Government. We are out of money, so we are cutting back. And one of the ways we cut back was through the sequester.

The way some of that is worded, some of these things are considered tax expenditures. For instance, the Federal Government promised to pay a property tax in lieu of real taxes. In other words, the municipality does not tax them, the county does not tax them. But the Federal Government says: Yes, we own property. If you can sell that property at a private sale, the private entity would have to pay property tax on that. So it is only fair that the Federal Government pays taxes in lieu of taxes. They have been doing that for a number of years.

The value of the properties, of course, has gone up considerably, particularly in cities where there are Federal buildings, but also in the forests. I have people who know the value went up because they are able to lease some cabin land in national forests. Their payments have more than doubled in the last 3 years. That is a 100-percent increase. I guess this year it is even a more dramatic increase. But the Federal Government, while it is charging more for the property, is not paying more in property taxes, which would be the normal thing. This year, they are taking 5.3 percent out of every bit of that tax. Of course, I say to people: Wouldn't it be nice if when you file your Federal income taxes you could have taken 5.3 percent out of there? It is sort of the same thing. It is what the government said they would pay in taxes.

There are a number of reasons these sales taxes are extremely important and getting more important. If you had Federal mineral royalties, you lost 5.3 percent of that too. That is because the States collect--half the money from the minerals in the State are supposed to be for the State and half are supposed to be for the Federal Government. The half the Federal Government received they considered to be revenue. The half that is supposed to stay with the States or go back to the States is considered a tax expenditure. Again, it was hit by 5.3 percent.

One of the reasons this is 5.3 percent this year in the sequester instead of 2.3 percent--which is what it was across the board for the .3 percent--is we don't have any months left to revise those expenditures, but these are one-time payments. The time for condensing them has not expired, so at the most it should have been 2.3 percent. That is a different problem that I will handle in a different bill. I am hoping people will not try to gum this up with a whole bunch of nongermane or irrelevant motions. If we stick to relevant ones where we are really trying to improve this bill, I am in favor of it. If we are trying to do some other peripheral ones, in light of the tremendous support this bill has, I am hoping people will stick to the bill and try to perfect it. We can have votes on that.

I see my friend from Tennessee is here.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments. He is very involved in the Banking Committee. He understands the transaction taxes that they are talking about, and I appreciate his learned opinion on that.

Mine comes from section 3, called ``Limitations,'' and in general it says: Nothing in this act should be construed as subjecting a seller or any other person to franchise, income, occupation, or any other types of taxes other than sales and use taxes.

I hope we stick to that and make sure it just says ``sales and use taxes.'' I have worked on this for 12 years, so it is tough enough to extend it beyond that. I know there are lots of things people would like and to open this up.

I appreciate the one amendment that was presented but was objected to, which was an amendment which would have continued to ensure--we already have a provision that says you cannot tax the Internet. You cannot tax the Internet. They wanted to extend that another 10 years, and it doesn't expire for another couple of years.

I thank the Senator for all of the effort he has gone to on this bill and all the ways he has helped us. I appreciate his plea for people to come forward with their amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his comments.

There is definitely a problem. We had people miss votes on Monday night because the supposed furlough that the air traffic controllers had to have in effect delayed some planes for more than 1\1/2\ hours. I looked at some of the numbers, and I don't think that had to happen. Even within areas, there is enough flexibility to do better things.

I noticed some of the sequester things in Wyoming that came out and made calls about them, and found out that people actually could change within their own budgets some things they were concerned with and make sure it didn't affect the customer.

That is just good management.

One of the things was closing down some of the visitors centers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. They are not open yet because at this time we are just getting the snow cleared out. I called and asked about keeping them open and they said we don't have enough personnel.

You have a gift shop there. That is a profit center. You are supposed to be making money on that.

They said the money goes to the general fund.

I said: Where do you think your money comes from?

The gift shop should operate, and if they have a problem with personnel, all they have to do is the person who runs the gift shop opens the door, does their day's sales, and in the evening as they are ready to leave, I hope they would look up and down the street and see if another customer was coming, but if they were not, go ahead and lock the door and leave. That is just good business. That is the way they could operate. It is my understanding those gift shops and visitors centers will now be opened.

There are ways that could be handled. To go back to the bill----

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate that question. One of the reasons there is difficulty, there is the blue-slip problem with the House, but also we have the section on limitations in this bill that appears on page 7. There are only 11 pages in this bill so it ought to be fairly easy for people to look through it and see what is included and what is not included. We have pretty much limited this--not pretty much, we definitely limit this to sales and use taxes. When they put other peripheral things in there, then they are opening the bill to go into a lot of different things. So I hope that would not happen.

Of course, there was some question earlier in one of the speeches by the Senator from Montana about the real difficulties of being able to administer this. Again, there are only 11 pages in the bill. Page 4 covers software, free of charge for remote sellers, that calculates the sales and use tax on that transaction due at the time it is completed. It also has to provide a way to file the sales and use tax returns, and it has to be updated for any rate changes that there happen to be.

The responsibility is all on the State to provide the software. I think the provisions that are in there pretty well specify how carefully that has to be done. If it is not, there is no liability on the remote seller. So I think we have covered that.

Yes, it will be difficult to do that software, but that is part of the provision in here. It can be done. This is a day, as the Senator from Tennessee points out, that we can put in a ZIP Code and find out what our sales tax is going to be. That is what this program is calling for. I think I have that right. I rely on the Senator from Tennessee to answer that question more specifically.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence a quorum.

Mr. President, Senator Brown was here earlier, and I had wanted to be able to speak briefly. So if, when I finish my remarks, he is here, I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized to speak.

I want to talk about what we have just heard here and an implication that we are not champions of small business.

I was in small business. I had shoestores, retail shoestores, so that is why I know some of these problems. I know about the people coming in, trying on the shoes, getting exactly what fits, having all of the service of looking through all of the styles and that sort of thing, and then leaving and making a purchase on the Internet.

Talking to other retailers now, that is not the biggest irritation. They buy it on the Internet, the product has a problem--and every product has the potential of having some problem--and they bring it back to the store where they got the free service, where they did not buy the shoe, and they ask for it to be replaced. I hope people can see the inequity in that.

But we are not talking about the small business like the shoestore I had. We are talking about small businesses that are selling online and are doing over $1 million a year in sales. I do not think people would consider that to be a really small business--$1 million in sales. If they are doing $1 million in sales, you can pretty much guarantee that they are automated. They are automated in their manufacturing, they are automated in their sales. That means they have a computer. Not many businesses today function without a computer. If they have a computer, you would be amazed at some of the things those computers will do.

I go back to Wyoming almost every weekend, and I visit businesses. I visit businesses so they can tell me what kinds of problems the Federal Government is causing for them. I am amazed at the automation they have. I am amazed at what they are able to do. And most of it is because of computers. Now we are saying--and I think computers kind of started out on that coast--that computers just do not have the capability to do these kinds of things. To be able to figure a sales tax? All you have to have is a ZIP Code, and it eliminates the 9,600 jurisdictions we are talking about here. That computer can figure that sales tax, and at the end of the month, that same computer will have kept track of all of this stuff, and it will do the reports that are necessary electronically. It can probably do that with about five or six key taps, maybe less than that. I am sure they could actually be set to send the report on the last day of the month at a specific hour. That is how computers work.

So an argument that this cannot be done--I do not think anybody will buy that. And the States would not be willing to provide those programs free of charge and then put in the protections from liabilities and errors if they were not sure they could do it. The reason they put in those protections for the retailer is because they are sure it can be done.

I was fascinated by the audits. If they are using that computer program, how could they vary from what they actually take in to actually sell? The program takes it in, the program holds it, and the program sends it out with the report. There is not a lot of room for error.

Then they say they are going to be running around auditing those firms. They are going to audit the firm that looks as if it is shipping everything everywhere and not reporting at all. That is what accountants do. They figure out the high risk. They are not going to go in and look for pennies here and there. They go in and look for enough to at least cover the cost of the audit. If you are not doing probably 10 or 20 times the value of the audit, you are not going to be hired to do many of them.

So those that are complying, using the program, they are not going to have any problem.

But this exempts all the businesses that are doing less than $1 million online in a given year. Until you do $1 million online in a given year, you are exempt from it.

I would imagine that a lot of those nurseries do not hit the million- dollar mark. They would like to hit the million-dollar mark, and I would like them to hit the million-dollar mark, and if they got to that million-dollar mark, I think they would be so overjoyed, they would say: I am automating on the computer. I will be happy to do it because maybe I can sell $2 million worth of sales if that is the case.

Now, comments on the streamlined sales tax. My State was one of the first ones to get into it. So was South Dakota, so were Nebraska and another 20, 21 States besides those. The comment was that you cannot streamline this. What kind of incentive has there been for them to streamline it more? The purpose of the compact is to streamline it more, but at the moment they are having to protect their sales within their State to make sure they are not losing the revenues they were already counting on.

They knew there was this little Supreme Court case that is now 20 years old that challenged us to fix it. That is what we are trying to do here--fix it. If that fix goes in, I am betting that a lot more States will join the streamlined sales tax and it will streamline more than what we envisioned. But even if they do not, there are requirements in here that keep it uniform enough. And with the computers, we can show examples of how people already do this sort of thing on the computer. That should take care of a lot of their problems.

I yield the floor under the previous order for Senator Brown.