Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The answer to that question is yes, the merchant would be responsible for collecting and remitting the sales tax. If the same sale were made on Amazon.com, would Amazon.com be responsible for collecting and remitting the sales tax?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Oregon, in the effort to describe the equality of treatment, he used the example that if a person went into a local bookstore and bought a book, they would pay and the bookstore seller would be responsible for collecting and remitting the appropriate State and local sales tax.

Mr. GRAHAM. I do.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. I want just--Mr. President, I would also settle----

Mr. GRAHAM. I object to the unanimous consent.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, is there currently a limitation on debate on this amendment?

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to complete my remarks, and then we will consider what will be an appropriate time limitation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the second issue which is directly related to the first, the first being the discrimination against the local Main Street sale, is the impact on the ability of local governments and State governments to carry out their fundamental educational, health, and other responsibilities. I will be a Floridian for a moment and cite some of the statistics about the potential impact that an out-of- control moratorium leading to permanent exemption from taxation of the Internet could have on a State such as mine. In 1996, the State of Florida collected a total of $11.4 billion in general sales tax revenue. This represented 77.3 percent of Florida's tax revenue generated from sales and excise taxes, excise taxes representing $3.8 billion of that total. Florida is not unique in having a high percentage of its tax revenue generated by sales and excise taxes. For instance, Nevada gets 84.3 percent of its total revenue from these two sources; Texas, 81 percent; South Dakota, 78.4 percent; Tennessee, 76.7 percent; Washington, 74.3 percent; Mississippi, 67.3 percent; Hawaii, 61.7 percent; Arizona, 57 percent; North Dakota, 56.8 percent; and New Mexico, 56.7 percent. They are examples of States which are heavily dependent on sales and excise taxes, the kind of taxes that are generated by Main Street activity. Currently, mail order nationwide has sales of $100 billion to $120 billion a year. That is the catalog of remote selling. This results in an estimated $3.5 billion to $4 billion in lost sales tax. It is estimated, for instance, in the State of Florida that that would represent something in excess of $200 million a year in lost sales. That is, if the same sale had taken place at the local shopping mall that took place over the remote sales catalog process, it would have been an additional $200 million of sales tax collected. Internet sales are expected to grow by the year 2004, not to the $100 billion to $120 billion of current catalog sales, but rather to $400 billion to $500 billion. So Internet sales, by the year 2004, are expected to be four to five times what current catalog sales are. If $100 billion in sales loses $3.5 billion, then the $500 billion would represent a loss of $17.5 billion. For Florida, this means there could be an estimated loss of $875 million in sales tax per year as a result of this removing of the responsibility of the Internet seller to collect the taxes on those transactions. Florida's Department of Revenue states that the cost of exempted Internet taxation costs the State $60 million in sales tax revenue and $18 million for the gross receipts tax. This gross receipts tax is what is used to fund our school construction costs. Mr. President, the impact of this on State and local governments in their ability to put an adequate number of police on the streets and an adequate fire defense, and particularly an adequate number of schools and teachers and the other support personnel necessary for their educational system, will be extremely vulnerable if this legislation gets out of control. This is the amendment which I believe begins to break the dam of reasonability. It is reasonable to have a brief pause to look at all of the implications of Internet taxation. I support that brief pause. It is also reasonable to look at one that is conducted by people who represent all the interests that will be affected by these decisions and that those persons have a charter broad enough to give us wise, comprehensive policy. To adopt the McCain-Gregg-Lieberman amendment, which would essentially say we are going to put a blindfold over our eyes and we will not be able to look at those remote sales activities which are the most analogous to what the potential for Internet sales would be, is, in my opinion, to render this legislation ineffective in terms of its purpose and to strengthen the doubts that some of us have that its real purpose is, not to have a thoughtful examination, but rather to have this as the beginning of what will be a permanent bar to State and local governments' ability to manage their fiscal affairs and that the principal loser of this will be the shuttered stores along Main Street of the traditional seller, like the bookstore unable to compete when he or she has to collect the local sales tax but its competitor thousands of miles away does not, and will also be seen in the diminishment of vital public services, especially the education of our children. So, Mr. President, for those reasons, I strongly support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas as eminently reasonable and consistent with the stated purpose of this legislation, and I urge its adoption. Exhibit 1 National Home Furnishings Association, Washington, DC. NHFA Concerns With Proposed Manager's Amendment to S. 442, the Internet Tax Freedom Act The home furnishings industry has struggled with the issue of whether there is an obligation for remote sellers to collect and remit sales/use taxes to the state in which the purchaser resides on sales of furniture, long before the first sale was made on the Internet. Sales are frequently made over the telephone or through the mails. In addition to the lost revenue to the state, the in-state retailer is placed at a distinct disadvantage. There is, of course, the differential in the customer's total cost reflecting the sales/use tax. However, the in-state retailer also makes a significant investment in the community. Indeed, many times they serve as the unwilling ``showroom'' and sales adviser for the remote seller, as customers visit their store, discuss a purchase with the sales staff, scribble down model numbers and then call a remote seller. NHFA has long sought a consistent, realistic definition of what constitutes nexus for the purpose of determining the sales/use tax obligation of a remote seller. S. 442 imposes a moratorium on so-called telecommunication taxes, and establishes a commission to examine a variety of issues. Both the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees' versions of the bill, as does the House bill, include language authorizing the commission to examine the issue of the obligation of remote sellers to collect and remit a variety of taxes includes sales and use taxes. For example, the Senate Finance Committee bill states: ``an examination of the efforts of State and local governments to collect sales and use taxes owed on purchases from interstate sellers, the advantages and disadvantages of authorizing State and local governments to require such sellers to collect and remit such taxes, particularly with respect to electronic commerce, and the level of contracts sufficient to permit a State or local government to impose such taxes on such interstate commerce.'' We have learned that a proposed manager's amendment would severely limit the scope of the commission's mission and strike the language allowing an examination of the broader sales/use tax issue. If a moratorium on telecommunication taxes is enacted, even though it does not technically apply to sales/use taxes on the purchase of the goods themselves, the moratorium will still have a chilling impact on the collection of those taxes. We thought we could live with that moratorium, in the belief we would gain more in the long run, if the commission could resolve once and for all, the broader issue of jurisdiction over remote sellers for all tax purposes including sales and use taxes. It would seem to us, if the manager's amendment strips the commission of the authority to examine the nexus issue, we get the worst of both worlds.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I also add my name to the list in favor of the residual purpose of this legislation, which is a pause of sufficient length to allow a serious study of the implications of Internet technology to be a party in the commercial marketplace, and the role of State and local taxation, as well as international and Federal taxation on this new technology. The purpose of that latter point is to achieve stability, predictability and uniformity in a way in which Internet transactions and access is treated and to avoid there being a discriminatory set of policies that are contrary to the development of their important new technology. I believe the Senate Finance Committee bill achieved that proper balance with a 2-year moratorium. What I am concerned about and what this amendment goes to is for that brief pause not to become a permanent prohibition. For the reasons that I have already cited--the rapidly changing nature of this technology and its application, the potential for a constituency to develop that would convert temporary into permanent, the basic unfairness of having some forms of commerce subject to tax while others are given the benefit of a moratorium, the inappropriateness of the Federal Government preempting appropriate State and local judgments for protracted periods of time--all have led me to suggest that we should add to the 2-year moratorium, as it is currently written, an additional protection, and that is at the end of that moratorium, if there is a proposal to extend further, that it would take a 60-vote margin and an equivalent percentage of votes in the House of Representatives in order to do so. That would give us some assurance that the objectives that are stated will be achieved, but that this will not become the camel's nose in the tent where eventually the whole body of the camel will be inside the tent. We would be in the position of a permanent prohibition on legal and appropriate policy decisions that have and should be made at the State and local level for the purposes of maintaining not only fair treatment in the marketplace but also the essential resources necessary for State and local governments to carry out their responsibilities in public safety, education and other critical areas. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment, which I consider to be wholly consistent with the objectives of this legislation as stated by its sponsors.

Mr. GRAHAM. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as the amendment clearly states, its purpose is to establish to the extent possible under our rules that the moratorium, whatever this body decides its initial length will be, will be that length and that we will not fall into a situation of a ``fluid'' moratorium, with efforts each year made to extend it further and further. This amendment does not go to the issue of what the length of the initial moratorium shall be. The bill before the Senate today, which is the product of the Senate Finance Committee, provides for a 2-year moratorium. There are amendments filed which would extend that up to 5 or 6 years. There are no amendments filed which would reduce the period of the moratorium. So it is fair to suggest that we will be dealing with the moratorium of at least 2 years, possibly longer. The purpose of this amendment is to assure to the extent possible that once we have made that decision, that will be the decision. The underlying premise of this bill is an unusual one for the U.S. Congress--not unique, but rarely used. That is, we are about to consider legislation which would preempt every State and every local government in this country, for a period of time, from exercising their otherwise legal powers relative to taxation on Internet access and transactions which are undertaken through the use of the Internet. While it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to decide that the Federal Government should not tax Internet access or Internet transactions, I am concerned we will face a proposal that tells States and local governments that they shall be denied the right to tax these transactions. The argument which I find to have some merit is that it is appropriate we have a ``pause,'' a period in which we can determine what is the appropriate means of taxing this new technology, and that during that pause there should be a prohibition on State and local governments imposing taxes on Internet access or Internet transactions. What I am concerned about is that that pause does not become a permanent slumber, an elongated sleep in which there is a prohibition on State and local government's ability to exercise what is their basic right under our constitutional allocation of responsibilities to raise those revenues necessary to support necessary government programs. The Federal Government has on many occasions passed legislation which conditions the receipt of Federal funds. For instance, in the highway bills we have frequently required the States to undertake a certain set of actions, such as setting a speed limit or imposing the requirement of seatbelts or motorcycle helmets or some other item which the Federal Government felt was of sufficient import, that the ability of the State to receive its otherwise due allocation of Federal funds would be conditioned upon their adopting that policy. But in those cases, the States have a choice. If a State believes the Federal requirement is so onerous or so misguided that they will reject it, they can do so and accept the consequences of some reduction in their Federal funds. What we are deciding here today is that the States do not have such an option. There will be a prohibition for the period of the moratorium on the State's ability to exercise their policy relative to the taxation of Internet access or Internet transactions. What concerns me about this policy is its potential to ``morph'' from being a temporary pause to being a permanent prohibition. What are some of the risks that are involved in this? One of those risks is the unknown, the unknown potential of this new rapidly developing technology having implications to State and local governments which are beyond our current ability to comprehend. As an example, there is an emerging technology--it is not new, it is in place but will probably become more prevalent--which is known as Internet telephony which is essentially where the Internet system substitutes for the normal local or long distance telephone lines as a means of transmitting telephone services. This system, which is currently in use on a limited basis, has the potential of being a very major competitor with the traditional ways in which telephone service has been delivered. Probe Research, a telecommunications and data networking market research system, forecasts that the demand for Internet telephony will make these services add up to a $6.3 billion market by the year 2002. That is just some 3 years from now. At that point, according to Probe Research, Internet telephone and fax traffic will account for nearly 10 percent of total long distance traffic, a very significant high-growth industry. What does this mean for State and local government? Telecommunications services and cable services are significant sources of revenue for State and local government. The Finance Committee bill, in fact, recognizes this by specifically preserving the Federal Government's taxing authority over many of these areas and preserving the taxing authority of State and local government for access to telephone and cable services. Unfortunately, the bill is vague regarding the treatment of such new technologies as Internet telephony. While it specifically protects Federal revenue, it does not clarify that the moratorium does not apply to State and local governments with respect to Internet telephony. I use this example because it is one that is before the Senate, an example that the implications of allowing a specified moratorium to become a longer-term prohibition could have implications on State and local governments and on the fairness in the marketplace between competing forms of commercial transaction, telecommunications, and other aspects of our economy that will be affected that are beyond our ability to currently estimate. A second risk is that this moratorium will become ingrained into the law. We have had multiple examples of where laws that were originally passed as temporary moratoriums, or as a temporary benefit, have become de facto permanent. In fact, before this session is over, we may be considering what is referred to as an extender law, which is to add additional months or years to a variety of tax benefits which were initially adopted to have a specified time to limited life. But once in place, once they have developed a political constituency, they have become, for all intents and purposes, permanent provisions in our Tax Code. I am concerned that the same development of a political constituency that has gotten used to the fact that they didn't have to pay any tax for access, and particularly any tax on Internet transactions, will develop here and there and will be tremendous political pressure at the conclusion of this moratorium, whenever that might be, for its extension. Next, the potential of a long-term moratorium merging into prohibition would create an imbalance on the commercial playing field. I could foresee what is happening in a limited form becoming more prevalent as retail stores begin to open a back office Internet sales shop in order to be able to participate in tax-free Internet sales. So what today is a relatively limited application has the potential of becoming a much larger threat to fairness and parity in the commercial marketplace and to a fundamental source of revenue for State and local government. Finally, the potential of the specified moratorium being extended would delay or obviate the accomplishment of the very objective of having the moratorium in the first place, which is to direct a commission, representative of the various stakeholders in this issue, to sort out the conflicting theories and practices and give us a recommendation for some uniform, fair, nondiscriminatory Federal, State, and local policies, as it relates to the use of the Internet as a form of commerce. So for all of those reasons, Mr. President, I am concerned, and I think our Members should be concerned, about the prospect of the moratorium, whatever length we finally decide is appropriate, becoming a permanent prohibition on the use of State governments and of their inherent powers relative to the Internet. Finally, Mr. President, I think the period of time that is in the Senate finance bill and the period of time that is proposed in various amendments should be plenty to accomplish the objective of this study. We have had a number of recent commissions that have been given a specific time to accomplish their task. Two or three years ago, the Congress established an Internal Revenue Reform Commission. It gave that commission 18 months to look at an agency as complex as the IRS. That commission actually completed its work in 15 months, made its report, and this year Congress used that report as the basis of probably the most sweeping reforms of the Internal Revenue Service in a generation. Last year, we established a Medicare Commission to look at one of the most complicated, one of the most expensive, one of the most sensitive programs that the Federal Government operates, the program that finances the health care of some 35 million of our older citizens. We gave that commission 18 months in order to issue its report. So I suggest that the 2 years that are in the Finance Committee recommendation are ample to carry out a much more focused study of the tax implications of the Internet and that we should take this step by adopting the amendment that I proposed to assure that this moratorium will not morph into a permanent prohibition. Mr. President, the fundamental issue here is the issue that underlies this legislation, and that is the desire to have parity, equality, on the commercial playing field among all forms of sales, whether they be the Main Street seller or the remote seller or the cyberspace seller; second, to assure that the Federal Government will not unduly intrude into the areas of historic responsibility for State and local government. It is appropriate for us to attempt to establish some standards for uniformity of treatment and predictability of treatment. It is not appropriate for the Federal Government to preempt State and local governments from their ability to exercise what they think is appropriate tax policy for their citizens. So the amendment would provide that once the moratorium has been completed, whatever its length, it would require a three-fifths vote of each House to extend that moratorium for a further period. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary Jo Catalano and Heather Landesman of my staff be granted floor privileges for the pendency of S. 442.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would not object, but I add that there be no second- degree amendments.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas. It meets some basic tests. It meets the test of essential fairness. We have today in this country a situation in which if Main Street were divided north and south, all of the stores along the northern part of Main Street are meeting their obligations to collect the appropriate State and local tax which is levied by their locally elected officials within that State and which are used to support State and local government. But the stores along the south side of Main Street are treated differently because the south side of Main Street is in another State, in another jurisdiction. Therefore, the sales that are made on the south side of Main Street are not subject to the requirement of collection by the seller as are the stores on the north side of Main Street. Therefore, if you go into a clothing store on the north side of Main Street and buy a suit, shirt, dress or shoes, you will pay and the store will collect and remit to the State those taxes which have been levied. But if you are on the south side of Main Street and you are communicating by telephone or through the post office, that seller does not have that obligation to collect the tax. This is fundamentally unfair. It is not only unfair to the retail seller on the north side of the street, it is also unfair in that it deprives the community of the resources which are necessary in order to pay for police, fire, health, and particularly educational services, the most expensive service that most communities provide to their citizens. In his opening statement, the Senator from Oregon and my colleague and good friend, Senator Wyden, indicated that the fundamental issue here is to treat commerce in a state of neutrality as it relates to technology. I think that very appropriately states the destination that we all want to get to, that we want to treat commerce with neutrality as it relates to the technology with which the commerce is conducted. Clearly, that is not the state of the law today. Senator Bumpers gives us an opportunity to achieve that neutrality by saying that all sellers will be responsible for the collection of State and local sales tax whether they are on the north or south side of Main Street. In addition to being an issue of fairness, it is an issue of our Nation's future. If there is one thing that unites Americans in 1998, it is a recognition that our future as a nation, our future as a cultural leader, as a security leader, and as an economic leader depends, more than any single thing, on the ability of each individual American to be able to perform at their highest level of potential. And it is to our education system that we look to provide for most Americans that means by which they can achieve their full ability. We have decided here in the Congress--and it is a position which I generally support also as a member of the Jefferson wing of the Democratic Party--that the best government is that government which is closest to the people who are served. We have, in a number of areas, devolved responsibilities to State and local governments. Those responsibilities also carry with them the obligation of State and local governments to provide the resources to finance those services. We have also, Mr. President, thus far, refused to provide for additional partnerships where the Federal Government could enter into programs to assist State and local responsibilities. One of the most dramatic of those has been in the area of school construction. I must personally say, having stated my essential Jeffersonian position, that I believe it is appropriate for the Federal Government to assist local school districts and States in seeing that old schools are rehabilitated and new schools are constructed to meet an increase in student population. This is a particular issue in my State of Florida, Mr. President, as we are entering a state of maturity in Florida in which we have many schools that are now 40, 50, 60 years old, or more, and need substantial rehabilitation. We are also a State that, every year, is adding some 50,000 to 60,000 new students to our public schools, therefore requiring new schools to be constructed in order to provide the classrooms and laboratories for those additional students, without resorting to overcrowded classrooms. I believe that the Federal Government has a role to play in this area, and it will be a role that could be played without undue interference with the responsibilities of State and local officials for the management of public education. I point out, however, that none of those efforts to provide for expanded Federal assistance has been accepted--other than some items through the Tax Code--and there has been a limited benefit to a certain number of school districts. But if we are not going to be providing an aggressive partnership to help States meet what today is over a $200 billion unmet need for school rehabilitation and new school construction, at least we ought to be assisting the States by allowing them to have their own taxes collected by remote sellers. According to the New York Times editorial, which was previously referenced, the loophole that exists in today's law that holds that remote sellers are not responsible for collecting State and local sales taxes results in a revenue loss of $3.5 billion today. And that number will rise as more commerce is conducted from remote sales. That $3.5 billion, if the States collect it, could finance a significant beginning of States meeting their school construction needs. So as I believe the first principle of the former profession of the occupant of the Chair is to ``do no harm,'' at least we ought to do no harm to the States by not precluding them from securing the revenue which they would have gotten had those sales been on the north side of Main Street because the decision was made to buy on the south side of Main Street from a remote seller. So, Mr. President, this is not only an issue of fundamental fairness, it is an issue of States in this era of devolution of responsibility and Federal reticence to provide assistance to States carrying out their most important responsibilities, such as the education of their children. This will be a step toward our recognizing our responsibilities to our brethren at the State level to be able to fulfill these responsibilities. Now, Mr. President, as I conclude, I do so with strong support for the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. Having offered the same amendment in the Finance Committee and having seen it defeated, and knowing this is not the first time that it has been debated on the Senate floor with the result being defeat, I am not optimistic that the Senate today, regrettably, will adopt the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. We are going to have another debate on a collateral subject, Mr. President. I alert my colleagues to this. It is the debate on whether the commission, which will be established in Senator Wyden's bill, should have the opportunity to consider the issue of the responsibility of remote sellers to collect State and local sales tax. At a minimum, if we are not going to adopt Senator Bumpers' very wise proposal today, we certainly should allow the commission to consider this on another day with even more analysis than we already have, and we will be in a position to do so. Mr. President, as I conclude, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the New York Times of October 2, 1998, entitled ``Fair Taxation in Cyberspace.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I have been involved in the Kissimmee River project since my days as Governor of the state of Florida. This project is the first step in a long series of individual projects that seek to restore the Florida Everglades to a state as close to their natural state as possible. The results of this backfill contract will be visible to the naked eye. This first contract would backfill 9 miles of the Kissimmee Canal; restoring approximately 16 square miles of restored river/ floodplain ecosystem and 17 miles of river channel. Not only will this have important ecological benefits, but it will also make an important contribution to increasing water storage capacity and improving water quality north of Lake Okechobee.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I concur with the sense of urgency that our colleague from Massachusetts just presented on this issue. With every day that goes by, another American family is at risk because they do not have these guaranteed protections; another American family is in a quandary because they do not have the kind of information that this would assure. The Senator from Massachusetts has spoken in great detail--and the Senator from Rhode Island will shortly do likewise--on this. If I could just focus on two items. The most contentious area between patients and their health maintenance organization is the emergency room. That is where the greatest number of disputes as to the appropriateness of service and responsibility for payment of service occurs. Recognizing that fact, last year, this Congress passed a very strong provision for the 35 million Americans who receive their health care financing through Medicare, to protect them relative to their HMO in an emergency room setting. Basically, the standard is, if you are a reasonable lay person and you are suffering from symptoms that a reasonable lay person would feel appropriate for emergency room treatment--say, you have a pain in your left chest--you can go to the emergency room, receive treatment, and not be faced a month later with an enormous bill from that same emergency room because the HMO denied coverage. The HMO is required to provide coverage. If you will notice on the chart, I believe it will indicate that both bills--the GOP's and the Democratic--have emergency room access. But that is not the end of the matter. It is not just a matter of getting into the emergency room and having assurance that somebody is going to look at you and determine whether your pain is angina or a heart attack. Then, after that decision is made, there is another critical period. That is what is called the postdiagnostic stabilization period, where something is done to you to bring you back to a level of health that will allow you to return home. There is a significant difference, because the Democratic bill provides that that postdiagnostic stabilization period is also guaranteed to be covered. That is not the case with the Republican bill. So you can't just look at a chart with three or four words behind the number and assume that we are talking about parity protections. That is what we ought to be debating. Is there a rational reason to have emergency room access covered, as it is in Medicare, but not to have, as it is in Medicare, the postdiagnostic stabilization covered? We could have a good debate on that issue, and we ought to have that debate. Secondly, the issue of informed judgment. Many citizens now have the opportunity to select from a variety of HMOs. They may be with an employer plan that provides multiple HMOs, or if they are purchasing from their own resources from the marketplace, what typically is absent is the means by which even the most concerned and conscientious citizen can make an informed judgment among this variety of plans. So we have a provision for information to be made available on the quality of the plan: What kind of things might we anticipate would come from that information about performance outcomes? How many of the patients under one particular plan who, for instance, have a particular type of surgical procedure have a successful outcome? If you are about to have surgery, you would be pretty interested in knowing what the prospects were of your having a positive result. Another provision that is likely to be included is information about what will this plan do to help you maintain your state of good health? Will this plan, for instance, provide for screening tests and periodic examinations? Those kinds of things, we know, have the greatest potential of spotting a problem before it becomes a fatal condition, giving you the opportunity to do something to maintain the quality of your health. That provision is in the Democratic plan, but it is not in the Republican plan. I think that is a critical matter for Americans attempting to use their own best efforts to select a plan that will best protect the health of their family. So, Mr. President, this is an urgent and critical issue. We are taking up a lot of matters in this last couple of weeks, and I would let the American people make a judgment as to our sense of priorities. Is it more important to be considering the Judicial Vacancies Act during the last 6 or 7 days of this Congress, or to be considering the Bill of Rights for 161 million Americans, in terms of their health care? That is a judgment that the American people should make. I think it is a judgment about which we in the Congress should feel a sense of responsibility to the citizens of this country--to prioritize our efforts on their behalf. Mr. President, I am certain we will have more to say on this issue.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my following remarks be included in the Record when the energy and water appropriations conference report is considered by the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak until 12:35.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I object.