Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we both believe some existing tax expenditures should be preserved in some form, but the Tax Code is also littered with preferences for special interests. To make sure we clear out all of the unproductive provisions and simplify the Tax Code, we plan to operate from an assumption that all special provisions are out unless there is clear evidence that they, No. 1, help grow the economy; No. 2, help make the Tax Code fairer; and, No. 3, effectively promote other important policy objectives.

Mr. HATCH. We are giving Senators 1 month to send us their submissions. We will give preference to bipartisan proposals. This input will make up the foundation of the committee's tax reform proposal. We want to ensure the bipartisan bill we introduce has broad input and buy-in from across the Senate. We cannot let comprehensive tax reform get bogged down in politics. Only a bipartisan bill can become law.

Mr. HATCH. It is a privilege to work with Senator Baucus, our chairman, on improving the Tax Code, on updating it for the 21st century. This provides a great opportunity to give families certainty, spark economic growth, create jobs, and make U.S. businesses more competitive. If it is done right, it can provide America with a real shot in the arm. My friend from Montana began this discussion with a quote. I feel it only appropriate to conclude with one as well. Abraham Lincoln said, ``Determine the thing that can and shall be done, and then we shall find the way.'' We are determined to craft a fairer and simpler Tax Code. Working together, I think we can find a way. I want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Montana for the work he has already done, for the work the committee has already done, the hearings we have held, the meetings we have held on these options papers, and for his general zeal in leading the charge here on this question of shall we or shall we not reform our Tax Code. If you look at that stack of Tax Code books that stood this high, you realize it is time to simplify this doggone mess. I think we can do it, but it is going to take a bipartisan effort. It is going to take all of us working closely. It is going to take everybody on the Finance Committee doing what it takes to bring tax reform alive. In 1986, it took 3 years to get the 1986 bill done. I do not think we have 3 years. I think we are going to have to do it now or it will not be done. I want to personally express my admiration and friendship to the distinguished Senator from Montana. I intend to help him every step of the way. I believe we have a tremendous contingent of Senators on the Finance Committee, as good as any time that committee has been staffed in the history of the Finance Committee. The Senators we have there are all solid. They are all fully embracing this in the sense of trying to come up with the very best reform we can. I have to say we have the best staff that committee has ever had as well. That is saying something, because it has always had great staff. The Finance Committee has always been one of the greatest committees in the Congress, as it should be. I have to say, under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Montana, it is no exception this time. We have great people on the staff. We intend to see if we can get this done. I want to thank my colleague for his great work.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak once again on the immigration bill before us. Before there was a Judiciary Committee markup, before there was an immigration bill, and before there was even a Gang of 8, most Senators had three basic beliefs: The immigration system is broken, fixing it will be neither simple nor easy, and it absolutely needs to be done. I share those beliefs. I also rely on two sets of experience. I served in this body and on the Judiciary Committee during the 99th Congress when we considered the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, commonly called the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, and during the 110th Congress when we considered the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. I voted against both of them. I opposed the 1986 legislation because it was self-proclaimed amnesty. I opposed the 2007 legislation because it had been developed outside of the Judiciary Committee. My participation in the current immigration reform effort has been informed by those beliefs and those experiences. We simply must fix our broken immigration system, but in doing so we must not repeat either the substantive errors from 1986 or the procedural errors from 2007. As we all know, most of the media and political attention has focused on the border security and legalization parts of this bill. But there is much more to it than that. I initially focused on two areas. First, working with Senators Rubio, Coons, and Klobuchar, I focused on increasing opportunities for high- skilled immigrants. The bill we introduced, the I-Squared bill, now has 28 bipartisan cosponsors. Second, working with Senators Rubio, Feinstein, and Bennet, I focused on developing the guest worker program that will be so important for the agricultural sector of our economy. Those discussions were led by Senator Feinstein, and there is no question I played a significant role in those. This program is the product of true compromise between farm workers and growers. I had real questions whether that could be done, but it was. I was glad to see it included as part of the Gang of 8 original bill. Another important provision that was made part of the original bill was my proposal for permanently extending a visa program for religious workers. This provision will provide up to 5,000 visas for foreign nationals to work with religious organizations that help America's neediest people and underserved communities. I have supported this program for many years and am very grateful that the Gang of 8 offered to include it in the bill at my request. In addition, I commend the Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Leahy, for conducting an open, fair, and thorough markup of S. 744. Thankfully, this bill--unlike the bill in 2007--is being handled through regular order. During the committee's consideration of S. 744, I filed 24 amendments, 20 of them within Judiciary Committee jurisdiction. I am proud of the fact that 15 of those 20 amendments were made part of the legislation that is before us now. I do not think ``proud'' is the word; I am pleased rather than proud. For example, the committee adopted by voice vote my amendment establishing strong penalties for cultivating marijuana on Federal lands. Mexican drug cartels are driving the expansion of this plague, using chemicals and diverting water sources that also harm the environment. My amendment will reduce the illegal drugs that enter the market and protect America's natural resources at the same time. The committee also adopted my amendment to establish a mandatory biometric exit system at the 10 busiest international airports. Preventing individuals from entering the country illegally is only one side of the coin; the other side, of course, is preventing individuals from overstaying their visas. We know if that works in those airports, we then will be encouraged to expand that in many other ways. Nearly half of those who are currently here illegally came into the country legally but did not leave when they were supposed to. My amendment tackles part of that equation. I do want to respond to what some of my colleagues have said about this new biometric system. Some have claimed that my amendment dials back current law. Let me be clear: I fully support the biometric exit system provided for under current law. Sadly, it has not been properly implemented. What good is it if legislation simply remains on paper? Do the critics of my amendment prefer the status quo, which has accomplished absolutely nothing? My amendment will actually deploy a real biometric exit system-- something that current law has failed to do. And, by the way, it is fully paid for. Trust me. This is more than just a figleaf. The Judiciary Committee also adopted--once again by voice vote--my amendment to improve education and training in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math, or the STEM fields. While foreign high-skilled workers play an important part in our economy, we need to invest more in developing the American workforce, especially the next generation. I look forward to seeing the STEM account grow and provide hundreds of millions of dollars directly to the States for this critical education and training. That is in the bill now. I am particularly pleased that the Judiciary Committee adopted a package of my amendments establishing a coherent and constructive approach to high-skilled immigration. These provisions will ensure that the H-1B and L-1 visa categories actually work for a change. I especially want to thank Senators Schumer and Durbin for their genuine willingness to compromise because these complex issues require a delicate balance of interests. This is the path I have pursued so far. From the outset of this process, I have made it clear that there are issues with this bill under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. As the ranking member of the Finance Committee, I have been working in good faith to ensure that those matters are addressed in a responsible and productive way. Toward that end, I filed amendments both in committee and on the Senate floor and have been working with my colleagues to get them included. These are important issues that simply cannot be overlooked. For example, there was the issue of whether immigrants receiving a change in status would be allowed to receive welfare benefits. Under a longstanding provision of Federal law, noncitizens, including legal immigrants, are not eligible for Federal cash welfare benefits for their first 5 years in the country. While S. 744 preserved that 5-year ban for RPIs, I know the Obama administration believes it has the authority to permit States to spend Federal welfare dollars on cash benefits to previously prohibited individuals. In order to prevent this or future administrations from contravening Federal welfare law, we needed to clarify that the Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot permit Federal welfare dollars from being spent on noncitizens. That is a system I am not willing to support, and I am pleased they accepted my amendment in solving that problem. Today I am pleased to report that we have successfully negotiated provisions that will prevent the administration from waiving the 5-year ban on welfare benefits as well as prohibiting the Secretary from permitting this type of spending. They have been included as part of the compromise package we will be voting on later this week. Another problem with the original bill was that it did not adequately address Social Security. Specifically, the bill did not state how periods of unauthorized employment would be treated in the calculation of Social Security benefits. Once again, I have worked with my colleagues to reach an agreement on a provision that says that periods of unauthorized earnings do not count toward determining Social Security benefits. The provision will, among other things, prevent people who did not have authorization to work in this country from going back and retroactively claiming unauthorized periods of work in which they used made-up or stolen Social Security numbers. This is a necessary step that will help to preserve the integrity of our Social Security system. As with the provision on welfare benefits, this provision is part of the Leahy compromise amendment. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, this provision will result in lower spending for Social Security and Medicare. While I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement on these important issues, there are other Finance Committee issues that have not been addressed. There is the issue of when those on the RPI or blue card pathways will be eligible for tax credits and health insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. I filed an amendment that would have placed those subsidies in the same category as other Federal means-tested programs, which, of course, includes a 5-year waiting period once an immigrant attains the status of a lawful permanent resident. There is also the issue of back taxes. I filed an amendment that would have required all RPI applicants to pay their back taxes as a condition of receiving a change in status. Neither of these two issues is adequately addressed by the current version of the legislation. In my view, these are serious problems that will need to be fixed before the bill is suitable for the President's signature. On top of that, there is still the issue of border security. While the compromise legislation we will be voting on this week significantly improves upon the original draft of this bill, I believe we can and should do more. So as you see, Madam President, there is still a number of issues that need to be resolved. However, as I have said all along, this is a process. Reporting the bill out of the Judiciary Committee was one step in that process, and passing the bill on the Senate floor is another step--a first step. I do not think anyone should be under any illusions that when the Senate completes its work on the legislation this week, the process is finished. The House of Representatives is working on its own bill with an entirely different approach. I have already begun reaching out to my House colleagues to help address these issues that I believe are important, particularly those that fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. I hope the House will work to address what I see as significant shortcomings in the Senate bill, and I will work hard to ensure that those issues are resolved should the bill go to conference. With that in mind, I plan to vote in favor of S. 744 later this week. As I said before, I share the belief of most of my colleagues that the current immigration system is broken and that reform is absolutely necessary. As I see it, the only way we can reach that goal is to allow the process to move forward. Once again, I would like to commend my colleagues for their work on this legislation thus far. I hope they will keep an open mind on future changes as well. While the final product is far from perfect, I believe we are on a path to reaching a reasonable solution to the problems that continue to plague our Nation's immigration system. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol to move this process forward toward a successful conclusion. Madam President, I yield the floor. In fact, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent my remarks be as in morning business.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate has so far this year confirmed 26 judicial nominees, including six appeals court nominees. The majority was right on cue, complaining about what they still insist is unprecedented confirmation obstruction and threatening to fundamentally change the confirmation process itself. The late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said that you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. So let us look at the real confirmation facts. The Senate confirmed a higher percentage of President Obama's first- term appeals court nominees, and did so faster, than it had for President Bush. The 111 judges confirmed in the previous Congress was the highest total in more than 20 years. Now we are at the beginning of President Obama's second term. The Senate is on a faster second-term confirmation pace than under any President in American history. And by the way, we have already confirmed more judges as the Democratic majority allowed to be confirmed in all of 2005, the first year of President Bush's second term. Or we can look specifically at nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The six appeals court nominees already confirmed this year are more than 60 percent above the average annual confirmation pace during the entire time I have been in the Senate. In fact, the Senate confirmed more appeals court nominees by this time in only eight of those 36 years. Despite those confirmation facts, the majority wants the public to believe that legions of judicial nominees are piling up, waiting to be confirmed, and the only thing holding back this confirmation flood is Republican obstruction in general, and Republican filibusters in particular. Democratic Senators claim that there have been hundreds of filibusters. In January 2011, they claimed that there had been 275 filibusters in the previous 4 years alone. Last December, the claim had risen to 391. My Democratic colleagues would be no less accurate if they claimed thousands or even millions of filibusters. There is no other way to say it, Mr. President, but the majority is committing filibuster fraud. Here's how they do it. The Senate must end debate on a bill or a nomination before we can vote on it. The process for ending debate, or invoking cloture, has two steps, a cloture motion and a cloture vote. A cloture motion is nothing more than a request to end debate and requires only the signature of 16 Senators. The little secret behind those wild claims of filibusters in the hundreds is that Democrats are counting cloture motions, not filibusters. On January 1 of this year, one Democratic Senator actually let slip what the majority is up to when he referred to ``the use of the filibuster as measured by the number of cloture motions.'' Cloture motions and filibusters are two different things. In a report dated just last month, the Congressional Research Service said: Senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture . . . at times when no evident filibuster has yet occurred. The current majority leader files cloture motions left and right, sometimes at the same time and in virtually the same breath as when he brings up a matter for consideration. That gimmick boosts the number that the majority uses as false evidence of a filibuster problem, but it is simply filibuster fraud. So many of these cloture motions are unnecessary that a higher percentage is withdrawn without any cloture vote at all than under previous majority leaders of either party. Here is one recent example. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the appeals court nomination of Sri Srinivasan on May 16, 2013. No one opposed this nominee in the Judiciary Committee, and no one was ever going to oppose this nominee on the floor. The majority leader still filed a cloture motion even though the minority leader had already agreed to a confirmation vote. I will not be surprised if the majority claims that this unanimously confirmed nominee was somehow filibustered because a completely unwarranted and totally unnecessary cloture motion was filed and promptly withdrawn. It is time to stop the gimmicks and fake numbers. It is time to stop the filibuster fraud. A cloture motion is simply a request to end debate while a cloture vote is an actual attempt to end debate. A filibuster occurs when that attempt to end debate fails. Let's look specifically at judicial filibusters. The majority should know the judicial filibuster facts because, after all, they pioneered the use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominees who would otherwise be confirmed. The Senate has taken a total of 51 cloture votes on 36 different judicial nominations since the first one in 1968. Remember that a vote against cloture is a vote for a filibuster. As this chart shows, 79 percent of all votes by Senators for judicial filibusters in American history have been cast by Democrats. One reason why the majority uses fake definitions and made-up numbers is that the number of real judicial filibusters is much lower today than in the past, especially during the previous administration. At this point under President Bush, the Senate had taken 24 cloture votes on judicial nominees and 20 of them had failed. In other words, there had been 20 judicial filibusters. Not cloture motions, but actual filibusters that prevented confirmation votes. But under President Obama, the Senate has taken only nine cloture votes on judicial nominees and only four of those have failed. There have been only four judicial filibusters since President Obama took office. It's no wonder that the majority today would rather use fake numbers than talk about real filibusters. Democrats led five times as many filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees than there have been filibusters of President Obama's judicial nominees. Five times as many. Not only that, but the very same majority party leaders who today most loudly condemn judicial filibusters the majority leader, the majority whip, and the Judiciary Committee chairman each voted no less than 21 times for judicial filibusters by this point under President Bush. They voted for real filibusters then, they condemn fake filibusters today. Another example of filibuster fraud is the claim that the Senate today is bound by a 2006 agreement among a group of Senators who came to be known as the Gang of 14. Just a few months ago, the majority whip said that the Senate is supposed to use this agreement today as the standard for justifying a filibuster. In the Judiciary Committee and here on the floor, Senators on the other side of the aisle lecture us about how we supposedly have violated that agreement. That agreement was never binding on more than those 14 Senators, it offered a standard that was to be interpreted and applied individually, and it never applied to anyone after 2006. Here's what happened. By the spring of 2005, Democrats had led 20 filibusters that prevented confirmation votes on 10 different appeals court nominees. The majority leader threatened to prevent judicial filibusters through a parliamentary ruling that could be sustained by a simple majority vote. A group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans joined to head off that confrontation. With a 55-45 Republican majority, the seven Democrats were enough to prevent judicial filibusters and the seven Republicans were enough to prevent a ban on judicial filibusters. I have here the memorandum of understanding signed by those 14 Senators. Three things stand out. First, it ``confirms an understanding among the signatories.'' The agreement applied only to those 14 Senators, only five of whom are serving today. Second, it says that this agreement is ``related to pending and future nominations in the 109th Congress.'' The agreement expired more than 6 years ago. Third, it says that those 14 Senators will support judicial filibusters only under ``extraordinary circumstances'' and that each Senator decides individually whether those circumstances exist. There never was any objective standard that applied to the Senate as a whole, or to any group of Senators for that matter. It could not be clearer. This was an agreement among those Senators to use that standard during that Congress in order to avoid that confrontation over changing confirmation procedures. Individual Senators may certainly use whatever standard they choose for their cloture or confirmation votes, including whatever this extraordinary circumstances standard might mean. But it is pure fiction to say that this temporary agreement ever bound, let alone binds today, more than those Senators who explicitly agreed to it. Today we have the bizarre phenomenon of Democratic Senators who voted for nearly two dozen filibusters of Bush nominees telling us that an expired agreement they had never joined somehow prevents us from voting for filibusters of Obama nominees today. Why is the majority using such sleight of hand and trying to enforce non-existent agreements? Why are they engaging in filibuster fraud? One possibility is that the majority wants to cover up the fact that President Obama has consistently lagged behind his predecessors in making judicial nominations. The Senate, after all, cannot confirm nominations that do not exist. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts tracks pending nominees for current judicial vacancies. You can see here the record based on that data. The Senate had pending nominations for an average of 41 percent of current vacancies under President Clinton, 53 percent under President Bush, but only 35 percent under President Obama. And today it is even lower, at only 33 percent. During his first term, President Obama was more than 30 percent behind President Bush's nominations pace, but ended up only 10 percent behind in total confirmations. That hardly looks like partisan obstruction to me. Not all vacancies, of course, are created equal. Some are more pressing than others. President Obama recently sent to the Senate nominees for the three remaining vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and the majority is demanding swift confirmation. By the Democrats' own standards, however, these nominees should not be considered. In 2006, Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote then-Chairman Arlen Specter to oppose considering a DC Circuit nominee. That letter, which I have here, said that another DC Circuit nominee ``should under no circumstances be considered--much less confirmed before we first address the very need for that judgeship and deal with the genuine judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.'' Madam President, I ask that both of these documents be printed in the Record. My Democratic colleagues had two criteria for filling a DC Circuit vacancy. The need for the judgeship to be filled had to be established, and particularly pressing vacancies elsewhere had to be addressed. Let's apply those Democratic criteria to these new DC Circuit nominees. The first Democratic standard is that there must clearly be a need for the particular judgeship to be filled. In 2006, Democrats offered specific criteria including the total number of appeals filed. As you can see here, based on the most recent data from the judiciary's administrative office, the number of appeals filed shown here in green has been below the 2006 level every year since, and far below the average of all circuits across the country shown here in red. Another Democratic benchmark is the number of appeals resolved on the merits per active judge. Based on the same data from the judiciary's administrative office, even with a lower number of active judges, this benchmark has risen a mere four percent from 2006. Whether you look at new cases or completed cases, judges on the DC Circuit handle about 40 percent fewer cases than judges on the next busiest circuit. Based on these Democratic benchmarks, these DC Circuit vacancies do not need to be filled. The second Democratic standard for considering DC Circuit nominees is that more pressing vacancies designated judicial emergencies should first be addressed. Vacancies get that label the older they are and the heavier a court's caseload. The contrast between 2006 and today is really dramatic. When Democrats in July 2006 rejected consideration of a single DC Circuit nominee, President Bush had made nominations for 12 of the 20 existing judicial emergencies. Now, when Democrats demand consideration of not one but three DC Circuit nominees, President Obama has sent us nominees for only eight of the 33 judicial emergencies that exist today. So the DC Circuit's caseload is down while judicial emergencies without nominees are up. I am not accusing my colleagues in the majority of flip-flopping because their party controls the White House, but it seems to me that their own criteria clearly compel the conclusion that these new DC Circuit nominees should not be considered at this time. The second reason for the majority's filibuster fraud is that they want to manufacture some justification, even if they have to make it up out of thin air, for eliminating judicial filibusters. They want to do today exactly what the Gang of 14 prevented in 2006, but with far less justification. The minority leader, Senator McConnell, has daily reminded us of the majority leader's explicit promise not to pursue changing confirmation procedures except through the steps provided for in our standing rules. In addition, if we look at the facts rather than the fiction, there is no conceivable reason to pursue such a change by any means. There have been far fewer judicial filibusters today--one-fifth as many--than during the Bush administration. There is less justification to change confirmation procedures today than there was when Democrats opposed doing so in 2006. Let me summarize this journey through the real world of judicial confirmations. There is a very real, very serious debate about the kind of judges America needs on the federal bench. The process of considering President Obama's judicial nominees, however, is being conducted reasonably and fairly. The majority apparently will do anything, even engaging in filibuster fraud, to avoid admitting the facts while hoping that no one will be the wiser. The truth is that filibusters are down, not up, and there have been far fewer judicial filibusters of Obama nominees than there were of Bush nominees. The DC Circuit's caseload is down while the number of judicial emergencies without nominees is up. There is a better course than provoking unnecessary confrontations by nominees to positions that should not even exist or by threatening to change confirmation procedures that should not be changed. The majority should abandon their strategy of filibuster fraud and prioritize filling the most pressing vacancies.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Michael Froman to be the next U.S. Trade Representative. Right now, there is a leadership vacuum in this country when it comes to international trade. That is especially true at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. A recent study by the Office of Personnel Management, which survey's employee satisfaction at executive branch agencies, found that USTR ranks near the bottom among small agencies in almost every category, including effective leadership. Unfortunately, this is not a new trend--the agency has been in steady decline since 2009. This is due both to a lack of real leadership and the fact that, with Trade Promotion Authority expired, our trade negotiators don't have the tools needed to do their job. To date, there has been no real effort by President Obama to secure TPA renewal. While I was pleased that President Obama announced this week that the United States and the European Union will soon begin formal negotiations on a trade agreement, I was surprised and dismayed that the President did not even mention TPA once in his remarks. This is incredible to me. It is easy to stand up and make speeches about trade. But real progress won't come by launching initiatives and talking about them. Getting our trade agenda right requires real leadership and the ability to get the agreements negotiated and approved by Congress. That simply won't happen without TPA. Members of Congress have fought to fix this problem. We pushed for a vote on TPA renewal on the Senate floor 21 months ago. Unfortunately, that effort failed, largely due to lack of support from our Senate Democratic colleagues. To me, this shows that Presidential engagement on TPA renewal is vital. Without the President's active leadership and public support for TPA, it is hard to see how our current efforts to renew TPA can succeed. And we must succeed. Today, 95 percent of the world's customers live outside the U.S. They account for 92 percent of global economic growth and 80 percent of the world's purchasing power. But the U.S. is falling behind as we fight for access to these markets. We simply cannot afford to sit back while other countries write the rules of trade to the detriment of our workers and our economy. Throughout the process of confirming Mr. Froman, I have made it clear that I expect the next U.S. Trade Representative to share my commitment to strong intellectual property rights protection and my passionate belief in the need for the U.S. to lead in setting the rules of international trade through renewal of Trade Promotion Authority. Mr. Froman was unequivocal, during both our confirmation hearing and in subsequent questions for the record, that he shares these goals. As the ranking member of the Finance Committee, I plan to hold him to his word. I also hope he will use his close relationship with the President to convince him that strong and vocal Presidential leadership on TPA will be critical to getting it done. I plan to do all I can to help support a positive, pro-growth trade agenda. I believe a strong vote in favor of Mr. Froman to be our next U.S. Trade Representative will be a good first step. I have seen a lot of people come and go in this position. I can say this: I have every confidence this man is going to be an excellent leader in the position he has accepted. I hope everybody on this floor will vote for him. He is for the trade promotion authority, which any President would want because it makes it easier to approve these free- trade agreements and other agreements that really are in the best interests our country. This man is competent, and he is highly qualified. He doesn't share my philosophy particularly, but I think he does with regard to this position. I have every confidence in him, and I hope everybody who can will vote for him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, tomorrow is Flag Day and I am proud to be joined by 21 of my colleagues in introducing an amendment to the Constitution giving Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. At a time when many issues divide us, the flag to which we pledge allegiance ought to be one thing that unites us. On this day in 1777, the Continental Congress adopted a resolution designating the design of the flag of the United States. President Woodrow Wilson first issued a proclamation in 1916 officially establishing June 14 as Flag Day and Congress did so by statute in 1949. States began adopting laws protecting the American flag in the late 19th century and every state had adopted such a law by 1932. Congress adopted the Federal Flag Code in 1942 providing uniform guidelines for displaying the flag and in 1968 enacted the Federal Flag Protection Act. We have, as they say, come a long way--but not in a good direction. Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was prosecuted under State law for torching an American flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. Five years later, in Texas v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the State flag protection law violated the First Amendment. Congress quickly revised the Flag Protection Act but in United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court held in 1990 that it too violated the First Amendment. I believe these two cases, decided by the narrowest 5-4 margins, were based on an incorrect interpretation of the First Amendment. But I also believe that the Constitution belongs to the American people, not to Federal judges. The Constitution embodies the will of the American people in setting rules for government. The Constitution defines what the federal government may do by enumerating its powers in the body of the Constitution. It defines what government may not do by identifying individual rights in the amendments to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has had its say, concluding that neither States nor the Federal Government may prohibit desecration of the American flag. But the Supreme Court does not have the last word about what the Constitution says or what the Constitution means. The American people do. They alone have authority to change the Constitution's rules for government. This is why I first introduced a flag protection constitutional amendment on June 22, 1989, just one day after the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. The American people can decide whether to change their Constitution only when an amendment is proposed and sent to the States for ratification. The American people should have that opportunity regarding protection of this unique symbol of national unity. Today is the ninth time I have introduced a flag protection amendment. The Senate has voted five times on such proposals, including three of mine. The bipartisan support has grown each time--from 51 votes in 1989, 58 votes in 1990, 63 votes in 1995 and 2000, and 66 votes in 2006, just one short of the \2/3\ required by the Constitution. Members of Congress must keep two things in mind. First, even if it is ratified, this amendment would not prohibit flag desecration. It would merely give Congress authority to do so. Remember what the Supreme Court did in its pair of decisions. The court did not say government should not protect the flag, but said that government may not do so. This amendment would restore that authority. I believe that a vigorous and public debate about our shared values and principles and about the flag as a unique symbol of national unity would be very healthy for America. We can have that debate only when the Constitution allows it and with this amendment the Constitution would. Second, members of Congress must remember our role in the constitutional amendment process. Congress cannot amend the Constitution. We can propose amendments, but the Constitution is not changed until \3/4\ of the States say so. Congress should not deprive the American people of the opportunity to express their will on this important issue. The American people want that opportunity. All 50 State legislatures have indicated their support for a constitutional amendment to allow protection of the flag. Just a few days ago, President Obama issued the annual proclamation designating this week as National Flag Week and designating today as Flag Day. He urged all Americans to observe these ``with pride and all due ceremony . . . as a time to honor America, to celebrate our heritage in public gatherings and activities, and to publicly recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.'' I believe that we can make that ongoing observance and celebration complete by restoring authority to protect this symbol of national unity.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. May I ask unanimous consent to ask that the Senator from Ohio, without losing my right to the floor, if he has something he wanted to do--I didn't mean to jump in front of him, but I was told I could appear here at 4 o'clock.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend from Ohio. I am happy to proceed. I appreciate that. I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio may speak and give his remarks immediately following mine.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take some time today to talk about immigration before us, its flaws, and what needs to be done to fix it. I first wish to note that I voted in favor of reporting this legislation out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I worked in good faith with my colleagues to secure the inclusion of provisions addressing things such as high-skilled immigration and a new agricultural visa program. Indeed, throughout the Judiciary Committee process, I was a willing negotiator on many important issues surrounding this bill. In general, I am in favor of immigration reform, and I wish to see this bill succeed. I also wish to commend my colleagues for their work on this legislation so far. Up to now, I think that process has been fair. It has been transparent, and, I believe, bipartisan. I hope that will continue now that the bill is on the floor. It is important we continue to work on a bipartisan basis because the bill is far from perfect. One can't look at it without knowing that. In my view, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before this legislation is ready for final passage. During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of S. 744, I introduced four amendments on issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. At that time I stated that my continued support for the bill is contingent on whether those issues were addressed before final passage. Today I will file similar amendments here on the floor, with the hope I can work with my colleagues to address these concerns. I want to say upfront that, despite what will likely be several claims to the contrary, these are not poison pill amendments. I have no desire to weaken the bill or to threaten its prospects for final passage. Indeed, I think my four amendments will make it easier to pass the bill with strong bipartisan support, not only here but in the House. Senator Rubio, a member of the Gang of 8, is a cosponsor on these amendments. I appreciate his willingness to work with me on these important issues. He has been the one singular person, in my opinion, who has had an open mind and has been willing to work on these issues with both sides. He deserves a lot of credit for this bill, but he knows it is not perfect, he knows it is not there yet. I know he wants to do the right thing. I can only hope other proponents of this legislation will be willing to do the same. Each of my amendments is designed to ensure illegal immigrants applying for a change in status are not awarded special privileges and benefits under the law. I don't want to punish these immigrants, I simply want to make sure they are treated no better or worse than U.S. citizens and resident aliens with respect to Federal benefits and taxes. Let me take a few minutes to describe each of my amendments. My first amendment is designed to ensure compliance with Federal welfare and public benefits law. As we all know, last July, during the height of the Presidential campaign, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an information memo to States allowing them to waive Federal welfare work requirements. We now know that HHS attorneys have concluded the HHS Secretary has the authority to waive almost any prohibitions on Federal welfare spending that exist under current law-- certainly a false interpretation. Under a longstanding provision of Federal welfare law, noncitizens are banned from receiving cash welfare assistance for their first 5 years in this country. Under S. 744, that 5-year ban is extended to registered provisional immigrants, or RPIs, and blue card holders. However, under current interpretations of the law by HHS, the Department could choose at any time to ignore this restriction and offer welfare benefits to these groups of noncitizens. My amendment would simply clarify the law to make clear the Obama administration does not have the authority to allow States to waive these longstanding restrictions and ensures welfare benefits are not offered to noncitizens as a result of this bill. As I stated, this is not punitive. This is not designed to punish any illegal immigrant seeking a change in status. It is, instead, designed to preserve the balance that exists under current welfare law. Some critics of the underlying bill have claimed it will allow illegal immigrants to receive welfare benefits, and when you couple the bill with HHS's recently claimed waiver authority, these critics actually have a point. My amendment would protect the bill from this type of criticism. That is a step in the right direction. I think it will bring people onto the bill. Let me make one thing clear: No one who is currently eligible to receive welfare benefits will be denied them as a result of this amendment. Instead, this amendment does something we should have done long ago, which is to assert the prerogatives of the Congress in the face of executive overreach. There is no question that with its information memo permitting States to waive Federal welfare work requirements the Obama administration overstepped its statutory authority. We now know officials in the administration were working through ways to circumvent key features of welfare reform for years, including how and on whom Federal welfare dollars can be spent. So we know they believe they can allow States to spend Federal welfare dollars on noncitizens, and I don't think it is far-fetched to conclude that at some point they will allow States to spend Federal welfare dollars on noncitizens. Congress needs to act to prevent this and future administrations from engaging in this type of overreach. That is the purpose of my amendment. My second amendment would apply a 5-year waiting period for immigrants to become eligible for tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies under the Affordable Care Act--or the so-called Affordable Care Act. Under current Federal law, most lawful permanent residents or green card holders must wait 5 years before they are eligible for most means-tested benefits, including Medicaid and TANF--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. However, the bill does not apply this 5- year waiting period to the premium credits and subsidies offered under the Affordable Care Act. True enough, the bill does not allow RPIs and blue card holders to access these benefits. But once they become lawful permanent residents, they can access them immediately. This is a serious oversight that essentially creates a carve-out for the Affordable Care Act and a huge expense to this government. My amendment would correct this oversight and put the Affordable Care Act subsidies in the same class as other Federal benefits. This is only fair. After all, even those who were U.S. citizens at the time the health law was passed have had to wait nearly 5 years for the law to go into effect so they could access these credits and subsidies. Those who would, under this bill, be placed on a path to citizenship should be required to do the same. The amendment also prevents nonimmigrants who are not on any path to citizenship from accessing these benefits. My gosh, anybody in this body should want that. Under the bill, a ban on Affordable Care Act benefits is applied only to RPIs and blue card holders but not to nonimmigrants. My amendment would extend the ban to nonimmigrants. Let me repeat that. Under the bill, a ban on Affordable Care Act benefits is applied to only RPIs and blue card holders but not to nonimmigrants. My amendment would extend the ban to nonimmigrants. Once again, my goal with this amendment is not to punish any immigrant applicants or deny them benefits they might be entitled to under the law. I simply want to ensure we are not creating a new class of people with special access to Federal benefits. We can prevent that by imposing the same waiting period on Affordable Care Act subsidies we place on other federally means-tested benefits. My third amendment would help to preserve the Social Security system. Under current law, for a worker to be eligible for Social Security benefits they must be classified as ``fully insured'' or ``permanently insured.'' To be become insured, a worker accrues quarters of coverage during the years they work in the United States. S. 744 is unclear as to whether it would allow an illegal immigrant who obtains a change in status to claim years of unauthorized employment to determine their eligibility for Social Security benefits. Indeed, this bill is entirely silent on this matter. Once again, this is a glaring oversight in the legislation that needs to be rectified in order to preserve the integrity of the Social Security system. My amendment makes it clear no periods of unauthorized employment can be counted in an employee's quarters of coverage and, thus, they cannot be used to determine eligibility for Social Security. This is not a matter that can be simply overlooked. If someone was not authorized to work in this country but made the calculated decision to work anyway, using a made-up or stolen Social Security number or if someone overstayed their visa and worked anyway, they should not have been working and paying into the Social Security system. Consequently, they are ineligible for benefits until they become citizens. Once again, there is nothing punitive involved with this amendment. It only ensures we do not reward past unlawful activities. Once they are lawful, under this bill, they can participate but not for past unlawful activities. That is like rewarding people for doing wrong and disobeying our laws and ignoring the obligations that come with living in the United States of America. And it is a punch in the face to every law-abiding citizen who has been making these payments. The amendment provides the fairest and most workable path forward. My fourth and final amendment is the one that has garnered the most attention, as it should, in some ways. I think all three of these amendments have been very important and will be very important in this debate, and I am certainly hoping my colleagues on the other side will recognize that and help to pass them. But this fourth amendment would modify provisions in the bill relating to back taxes to include all income and employment taxes owed by immigrant applicants. For the past few months, proponents of this legislation, including members of the so-called Gang of 8, have been claiming that, as a condition of being put on a path to citizenship, illegal immigrants will be required to pay back taxes. This claim was repeated in the Halls of Congress, on Sunday morning talk shows, and in casual conversation. This was a promise made as a chief response to arguments the bill would provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. However, under the current draft of the legislation, this promise goes largely unfulfilled. The bill currently states illegal immigrants cannot apply for a change in status unless they have ``satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability.'' While that is all well and good, under this standard immigrant applicants will not be required to pay any portion of their back taxes owed to any part of their U.S. residency unless the IRS has already made a tax assessment. This will only occur in the very rare case where the IRS has already audited an immigrant applicant and found a tax deficiency. Put simply, very few people will be required to pay back taxes under this provision. My amendment would require RPI applicants to demonstrate they either have no obligation to pay back taxes or to actually pay the back taxes they lawfully owe. It also requires them to remain current on their tax obligations once they obtain the change in status. Once again, this is only fair. Some may claim it is punitive, but that is absurd. Is it punitive to ask immigrant applicants to live up to the same standards and requirements imposed on citizens and legal residents? No. When a citizen decides to leave the United States and renounce their citizenship, they often face taxes on income earned in the United States and on any gains from appreciated assets. Is it punitive to apply a similar standard for those seeking U.S. citizenship? Think about that: When a U.S. citizen decides to leave the United States and renounce their citizenship, they often face taxes on income earned in the United States and on any gains from appreciated assets. That is not punitive. The answer, of course, is that it is not punitive. My amendment would not punish any immigrant applicants. It would simply ensure they pay no more and no less than U.S. citizens and resident aliens in the same economic position. In addition to claims that requiring the payment of back taxes is punitive, some have already claimed it would be impossible to enforce because the applicants won't be able to determine what they owe in back taxes. This too is extremely misguided. The IRS is well experienced at estimating the tax liabilities for people who, for whatever reason, lack the records that normally support a tax return. They do it for U.S. citizens. Why can't we do it for people who now want to be on a path for citizenship but who haven't played by the rules? It just makes sense. Using bank records, credit card statements, housing records, and other evidence of an individual's lifestyle, the IRS is able to construct returns and estimate tax liabilities for nonfilers who are U.S. citizens and resident aliens. The same process can be used for immigrants looking to certify they no longer owe any Federal taxes. That is not a tough thing to do. It is something they do every day at the IRS. It may very well be that a number of these people didn't make enough money to pay any taxes anyway. But they should at least have to be honest about where they stand, and they should at least have to do what regular citizens in this country have to do. We are not asking anything more or less than that. In the end, the only way proponents of this bill can escape the label of amnesty is to ensure immigrant applicants fulfill all their legal obligations and they are not accorded any special treatment. We are talking about amnesty here. This is the way to get rid of amnesty and to pass this bill. You simply cannot do that without requiring they pay any taxes they still owe for income they earned during their U.S. residency. I think the authors of the bill know this because, once again, they have been claiming the bill requires the payment of back taxes for months now. My amendment would simply fulfill the promise they have already been making. Let's get it right. Let's not play games. What is more, if we put this amendment into effect, we would be reducing the tax gap. As you know, the tax gap is the difference between what is actually paid to the IRS and what taxpayers owe under the law. The most recent tax gap estimate we have is from 2006, when the tax gap was approximately $385 billion for a single year. A number of my colleagues on both sides of the floor talk a lot about closing the tax gap. My amendment would take significant steps toward doing just that. As I said at the outset, my amendments are not designed to punish immigrants who come forward out of the shadows, and they are not designed to poison the well for immigration reform. My aim throughout this process has been to improve the bill. I believe we are engaged in an important effort, but we have to do things the right way. I made that effort during the markup of this bill. I didn't bring these four amendments up because they were Finance Committee amendments and probably would have been ruled out of order in the Judiciary Committee, and I agreed with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to defer until the floor. Now, all of a sudden, I am finding there are roadblocks being put up on these very simple amendments. Too often over the past few years the Senate majority has opted to ignore opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on issues of great importance. When the Senate first took up immigration reform, proponents of the bill said they were hoping to get at least 70 votes in the Senate. I said at the time that was an important goal, that we needed to get at least that many votes to send the right message to the House of Representatives. However, this week there are indications from the Democratic leadership that they are willing to set these goals aside if they just get 60 votes. Well, guess where that is going to go with the House. If we get 70 votes, that puts pressure on everybody involved in this matter. And I think we can get 70 votes. According to news reports out just today, two members of the majority leadership have indicated that they don't want to make too many concessions to conservatives in order to get Republicans on board. Instead, they just want to focus on getting to 60 votes. Needless to say, I think that would be a serious mistake. I think there are a lot of people on this side who would like to vote for a final bill, but they are going to need amendments like these that are basically simple, nonpunitive amendments that make sense, that basically show we are not for amnesty. Immigration reform is too big to be done by just one party, and it can't be done with the support of just a small handful of Republicans. As courageous as those Republicans have been, as far as I am concerned, it is going to take Members of both parties to put together something that can not only pass but also something that will work once it becomes law. We do have an opportunity to come together here on something that will make a real difference for a lot of people; something that, if done correctly, can do a lot of good. I hope we don't waste this opportunity in favor of yet another political exercise. Once again, I want to support this legislation, but I am not going to if we don't do commonsense things like this, and I am laying down the gauntlet. I want immigration reform to succeed. These amendments will help it to succeed not only here but in the House of Representatives as well. But unless we address these four issues I have outlined today-- and there are others, but these are the ones I have decided to bend my plow over--unless we address these four issues, I believe the bill is designed to fail, if not here in the Senate then in the House of Representatives. And it will deserve to fail, as far as I am concerned. Most importantly, if we don't address these issues, the bill will not be able to be implemented in a fair and equitable way, and I think the American people would be justly outraged. I know there are some who don't really care about these important issues. I just urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendments--I think it is critical that these amendments pass--or work with me to find ways that I can please both sides. But I believe they are pretty straightforward amendments. I was promised by leaders in the Gang of 8 that they would work with me, that they would help me get these things done. I consider those promises to be very important. Yet I have had some indication over the last few days that maybe they are not going to work with me. I don't think anybody has acted in better good faith than I have. As I have said, I would like to support the bill. And make no mistake about it, I don't want people stiffing me on things that I consider to be important without even talking, without even working with me to resolve any problems they may have. I am not the kind of guy who takes that lightly. I think there is too much partisanship around here anyway. Frankly, if you could pass this bill with these amendments, I think it would go a long way to showing not just four Republicans on our side who are courageous, as I think are the four Democrats in the Gang of 8. But they are not the only ones who should support this bill if it is done right. If this is going to be a political exercise, count me out. If this is an exercise to really try to resolve the amnesty issues, if it is an exercise to really try to resolve these critical issues, I can be counted in. Maybe I don't mean that much in this debate, but if you look at some of the major sections in this bill, I have worked them out, and I will help work out this bill not only with colleagues on this side but with colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill. But I don't want to be stiffed at this time, and I am not the kind of guy who takes stiffing lightly. I see some real politics at work here rather than the kind of fair working together that we have to have and that we have to start working toward if we want to really accomplish things that need to be accomplished during these next 3\1/2\ years. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, generous philanthropist, and tireless advocate for arts and education--Beverley Taylor Sorenson. Sadly, Utah and our Nation lost a truly delightful and influential woman this past week as she quietly passed away at the age of 89 surrounded by her loved ones. I have known and worked closely with Beverley and her late husband James ``Jim'' Sorenson for many years and have always admired her work ethic, her commitment to serving others, and of course her love for and appreciation of the arts and the influence it can have in the lives of many. Her love of the arts began at an early age as she fondly remembers music always playing in her childhood home. She grew into an accomplished dancer and pianist; in fact she would later earn money accompanying dance classes in Salt Lake City to help put herself through college. Perhaps it was her own childhood experiences of personal arts education that later led to her passion for providing generations of children with the opportunity to learn and grow through the study of art and the many disciplines it entails. She witnessed firsthand the positive effects of arts education in many young lives and schools throughout the valley and set about trying to bring it to every corner of our State. She was the driving impetus in the creation of Art Works for Kids, a program integrating arts based concepts into traditional core education subjects with wonderful results. She believed in this program greatly and felt that children would learn and retain more knowledge when coupled with art activities. Because of her tireless efforts, the Beverley Taylor Sorenson Arts Learning Program, BTS Program, will serve tens of thousands of students during the upcoming school year at approximately 130 Utah elementary schools. Beverley and Jim also created the Sorenson Legacy Foundation to support programs and projects that would benefit the lives of people throughout the world, giving generously and supporting vigorously. Together they built a lasting legacy of humanitarian service and philanthropy that has benefitted thousands and will continue to help generations to come. Not only did Beverley dedicate herself to community efforts, she was a wonderful wife and mother, raising 2 sons, 6 daughters, and loving and mentoring 49 grandchildren and 65 great-grandchildren. She truly leaves behind a wonderful posterity who can build upon their mother and grandmother's example of a life well lived. The impact and contributions Beverley Taylor Sorenson made to her family, our State, and our Nation will be felt for years to come. She was truly a magnificent lady who deeply cared about others and set about to do good throughout her life. Elaine and I send our deepest sympathies to her family and hope that they will find peace and comfort in the memories they share of this remarkable person.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to one of Utah's great soldiers, Army Medic Cody Towse who was killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan on May 14, 2013. He was coming to the aid of a fellow soldier when he was hit by one of four blasts that day. Specialist Towse was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division from Fort Bliss, TX. He was deployed to the Kandahar region of Afghanistan in December 2012 and has served courageously there. While in Afghanistan, Towse was instrumental in training Afghan medics in emergency procedures; and became known as the candy doctor because he loved to give candy to the Afghan children. In fact, I think it speaks volumes about the character and love of this young man when, for his 21st birthday, he asked his parents to send him candy that he could give the children. Specialist Towse's love for service began at an early age as he trained and worked as a volunteer firefighter and EMT for Elk Ridge City. He took great pride in his work and in helping others. Sadly Specialist Towse's body returned home to Elk Ridge, UT last week encased in a silver, flag-draped coffin met by family and hundreds of admirers and friends wanting to pay tribute to this fallen soldier. Neighbors and friends lined the streets and quietly waved flags of respect, giving a special tribute to one of Utah's own. Our Founding Fathers declared the United States a freedom-loving people--a declaration on which they risked everything--their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Throughout our Nation's history, our liberty and our freedoms have been protected and cherished by our military. And so as we lay to rest this courageous hero, I pay tribute to Specialist Towse who has helped pave the road to freedom. I love the following passage that so poignantly describes the peace and comfort I take from the examples and lives of our nation's soldiers. It states: They died for liberty--they died for us. They are at rest. They sleep in the land they made free, under the flag they rendered stainless, under the solemn pines, the sad hemlocks, the tearful willows, the embracing vines. They sleep beneath the shadow of the clouds, careless alike of sunshine or storm, each in the windowless palace of rest . . . they are at peace. I am humbled by this young man's life and sacrifice. May God bless his family and all those he left behind with peace and comfort from their memories of this wonderful man and soldier.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to an extraordinary man, dedicated public servant and tireless advocate for our Nation's veterans--Mr. Terry Schow. Terry will be retiring after more than 25 years of service to Utah's veterans. Terry has been a long-time advocate, tireless worker, and public face for veterans causes in our State for almost three decades, and has served in top-level positions under three Utah Governors. I have had the pleasure of working with Terry for many years as Utah's Senator and I can attest to this man's dedication and love for our Nation's veterans and their needs. No one has worked harder, or cared more about the issues affecting veteran's lives and futures than Terry. He has approached so many important issues with dogged determination and never, ever let up until problems have been solved. Through Terry's tireless leadership three veterans homes were opened, and medical services in our State for veterans have greatly expanded and improved. He has written articles in newspapers throughout our State to bring attention to the issues he has worked on daily for veterans, and has attended literally hundreds if not thousands of events in support of veterans and their sacrifices. Terry has first hand knowledge of the service and sacrifices veterans make for our country. He is a U.S. Army veteran who volunteered to serve in 1967, and served in the 5th and 10th Special Forces Groups and the 25th Infantry Division in Southeast Asia. He has walked the path of soldiers and has been able to personally relate to the many men and women he has served. His accomplishments in Utah have not gone unnoticed. He was tapped to serve as the president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs for a time and was able to share his wealth of knowledge in this prestigious position with people throughout America all working to help our Nation's veterans. In addition he has served on dozens of boards and organizations committed to veterans issues. Terry was born and raised in Ogden, UT and is the proud father of two children, and grandfather to three. Utah's veterans have been well served by this man. He has truly been an extraordinary leader of veterans affairs and I know that many will greatly miss his advocacy and leadership on issues of great importance to this population. However, I am certain that retirement will not stop Terry's work and advocacy on behalf of veterans. He truly respects, and loves the men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so greatly for the freedoms we enjoy. I want to sincerely thank Terry for his dedication, his commitment and his tireless service to veterans. He has accomplished great things and paved the way for continued success and assistance for Utah's beloved veterans.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 953, the Student Loan Affordability Act, continuing a disturbing pattern when it comes to the consideration and processing of legislation under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am the ranking member. This legislation contains revenue-raising measures that should be considered in the Finance Committee before coming to the floor. Yet, once again, the Senate Democratic leadership has opted to bypass the committee by way of Senate rule XIV. If the majority leader succeeds in proceeding to S. 953, I plan to offer a motion to commit the bill to the Finance Committee. There is bipartisan support for reforming tax incentives for education. If the opportunity arises, my motion could be crafted in such a way to focus the Finance Committee's efforts on reforming these incentives in short order. Millions of American families and students would be well-served by such reforms. In any event, any legislation addressing these incentives should be considered through regular order, which means full and fair consideration in the Senate Finance Committee. I intend to work to make sure that takes place. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my dear friend and colleague from Maryland. He is a wonderful person and a very good Senator. I enjoy him on the Senate Finance Committee. He is one of the brighter people on that committee, among a whole bunch of very bright people.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak on a matter that deserves the attention of everyone in this Chamber. By now we all know about what is going on at the Internal Revenue Service. We have seen the report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, TIGTA, indicating that between 2010 and 2012 the IRS was targeting conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for increased levels of scrutiny. We have read the accounts of conservative groups that were asked improper questions about their donors while some of their applications were delayed for more than 3 years, even as applications for groups friendly to the President and liberal causes were promptly approved. We have heard the apologies from senior IRS officials and the condemnations from the White House itself. While we know for a certainty that this unacceptable behavior was going on at the IRS, there is still much more we do not know. For example, we still do not know why the targeting began or why only conservative groups were targeted by the IRS examiners. We do not know the full extent to which senior officials at the IRS and Department of Treasury became aware of these practices, when they found out, and what they did or did not do to put a stop to these practices. Perhaps most importantly, we do not know why, when Members of Congress asked questions about these issues last year, and after senior officials certainly knew of the problem--or problems--we were led to believe that no groups were being targeted. Indeed, neither Congress nor the American people learned anything about these activities from the responsible officials until they were trapped and their hands were forced. There are not words to describe what has gone on here. Some of us have tried. Words such as ``unconscionable,'' ``unbelievable,'' and ``Nixonian'' have been thrown around, rightfully, in my opinion. But regardless of the words we use to describe it, this is easily the most shocking and outrageous turn of events we have seen in Washington in some time--and that is saying something. One thing I am glad to see is that these actions have, for the most part, been condemned by Members of both parties. In the end, I hope both Republicans and Democrats will work together to address these issues. I have said from the outset that it does not matter if a tax-exempt group is liberal, conservative, or moderate. It is an outrage that the IRS would single out any group based on its political beliefs. On that point there is bipartisan agreement in Congress and throughout the country. On the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus and I are undertaking a bipartisan investigation into this matter to find out exactly what happened and make sure this type of thing never happens again. I am happy to be working with Chairman Baucus on this effort, and I want to assure my colleagues that we are going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to find out just how far down the rabbit hole the IRS went in singling out groups based on their political beliefs. We are going to find out why the IRS ignored a bedrock rule of tax administration: Treat similarly situated taxpayers similarly--always. We are going to find out exactly who was responsible, and we are going to hold them accountable for their actions. The IRS needs to come clean about what went on here. Chairman Baucus and I intend to make sure they do. Sadly, while the targeting of conservative groups in the review process has gotten most of the attention thus far, there are other issues involving the IRS that are every bit as disconcerting. There are news reports indicating that in 2012, the same IRS office improperly disclosed confidential information about certain conservative groups to media organizations. Last November, the journalist group ProPublica requested 501(c)(4) applications for 67 different nonprofits. Less than 2 weeks later, the IRS produced application documents submitted by 31 of the organizations. Included in this group of documents were the applications from nine conservative organizations that were still under consideration by the IRS. ProPublica subsequently posted six of those applications in redacted form on the Internet and published articles analyzing the information they obtained. This is disturbing for at least three reasons. First and foremost, under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is prohibited from disclosing applications for tax-exempt status that are still under review. While the IRS is authorized, under section 6104, to release application materials of groups that have already been granted tax- exempt status, pending applications are required by law to remain confidential. This appears to be a pretty cut-and-dried violation of the Internal Revenue Code, meaning that civil and criminal penalties may apply. Second, the IRS responded to ProPublica's request in just 13 days. That seems extraordinarily swift, and it raises the question of how long the IRS normally takes to respond to such document requests. I do not want to prejudge anything, but I suspect it usually takes longer than 13 days to hear back from the IRS. It certainly takes longer than that for the IRS to respond to requests from Congress. Finally, this revelation comes not too long after other allegations that the IRS disclosed confidential information submitted by conservative nonprofits. In the spring of 2012, activist groups and media outlets began posting confidential donor information regarding the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, on the Internet. Such information is also required by law to be kept confidential. Although the IRS is authorized to release yearly forms filed by tax- exempt organizations, the law prohibits donor information from being disclosed, and that is whether it is a conservative, moderate, or liberal organization. Yet National Organization for Marriage's documents that found their way online in the middle of a Presidential election appeared to have come from the IRS. This was suspicious, to say the least. That is why, in May of 2012, I sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner requesting an investigation into whether the IRS publicly disclosed confidential donor information about the National Organization for Marriage. To date, I have not received a substantive response. So in addition to the revelations that the IRS was improperly targeting conservative groups for scrutiny of their 501(c)(4) applications, we have these unanswered questions about the possible illegal disclosure of confidential information to media outlets and other organizations. This is another matter that needs to be resolved in order to restore the credibility of the IRS as a government agency. That is why I, along with all the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, have submitted a letter to the Treasury Inspector General asking that he look into these issues. Among other things, our letter requests that TIGTA--that is the Inspector General's organization--investigate to determine which employees at the IRS were responsible for improperly disclosing confidential documents to ProPublica and whether any actions have been taken against them. In addition, this letter asks for an investigation into whether the IRS followed its usual Freedom of Information Act procedures in its prompt response to ProPublica's document request. Our letter asks TIGTA to determine whether the IRS ever undertook an investigation to determine if the agency was responsible for leaking the National Organization for Marriage's donor information. The American people have a right to expect government agencies to perform their functions in a neutral, unbiased manner. When any agency breaks that trust, it undermines the credibility of the entire government. These are not matters that can simply be wished away by public apologies and condemnations. They cannot be covered up by a handful of resignations, and they are not covered up by an apology. I hope the administration knows this. The only way to fully address these issues and to fully restore the credibility of the IRS is to have full accounting of the facts. In one way or another, we are going to learn all we can about the facts and what went on there. I hope we can do so with the full and complete cooperation of the administration. Look, the IRS is the most powerful agency in government. Our liberties depend upon an impartial IRS. We know many of the employees of the IRS are represented by one of the toughest unions in this country. We can presume from that most of them are not Republicans. Be that as it may, the Democrats I know whom I honor and respect are those who keep their word, live within constraints, follow the rules, do what is right, and fight hard for their principles. But the IRS is not a place where we should be doing anything but fighting hard for the principles of fair treatment of all U.S. citizens. I would be decrying this if the IRS was doing this to liberal organizations. We do not expect it to ever do that, but I would surely be decrying it. All I can say is that the very essence of liberty is involved with what the IRS does or is doing. If we cannot rely on the most powerful agency in government to treat people fairly, then this country is in much greater trouble than many of us think it is. We know we are in trouble. We know we are living beyond our means. We know we are not doing what is right in this country. We know Congress could do a much better job than it is doing. That includes both Democrats and Republicans. It is inexcusable for an agency with the power the IRS has to be involved in these types of shenanigans. It is chilling, absolutely chilling to anybody who thinks about it, that this most powerful agency can basically come down on anybody for almost any reason if it is not honest. We have to restore the trust and the honesty of the IRS. We have to be able to rely on the IRS being fair, impartial, and in doing what is right. I think I speak for my colleagues on the Democratic side. Many of them are as outraged as I am about what went on here. It is not right. I think the American people fully understand that. I appreciate those who are honest. I appreciate those who do abide by their ethical constraints. I appreciate those who are not political at the IRS. There are many good people working there. I do not want them to be besmirched by the few. There might be a little bit more than a few people who do not honor the ethical constraints that the IRS simply has to live up to. Let's hope neither side will ever again use the IRS for political purposes. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the nomination of Marilyn Tavenner to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS, one of the largest agencies ever in the history of the country. For a number of reasons, CMS has been without a confirmed Administrator since the fall of 2006. CMS is the world's largest health insurer. It processes over a billion Medicare and Medicaid claims a year. It has a budget of nearly $1 trillion. It also provides services to over 100 million of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens receiving Medicare and Medicaid. So clearly this is a critical agency that needs a strong leader at the helm. Thus far, from what I have seen, Ms. Tavenner has the qualifications to be that kind of a leader I believe her to be. She has clinical experience from being a nurse, executive experience from serving as a hospital administrator, and hands-on operational experience from her time as the secretary of health and human resources for the State of Virginia. That rare combination of skills will be essential when heading an agency as diverse as CMS. There is a reason she was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee on a voice vote and had the House majority leader come testify on her behalf. Starting in 2010, she was appointed as the Deputy Administrator of CMS. Since November of 2011, she has served as the Acting Administrator. So far, she has shown a willingness to work with Members of both parties, which is a welcome development, particularly under this administration. At a time when the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is engaging in activities that are less than transparent and potentially illegal, it is even more important that an agency as vital as CMS be headed by someone with strong ethics and integrity. Make no mistake, this agency's greatest challenges lie ahead. One of the biggest problems facing CMS in the near future is implementation of the Federal- and State-based health insurance exchanges established under ObamaCare. These exchanges are supposed to be brought online later this year, but there are numerous obstacles that will have to be addressed. By most indications, it would take a miracle for the exchanges to be up and ready on time. To date CMS has not been able to provide satisfactory answers to a number of questions posed by myself and other Members of Congress regarding the exchanges. For example, we have yet to see a breakdown of the budget for the federally facilitated exchange. Furthermore, we still know very little about the operational details of the exchanges and even less about how people will enroll. These are serious issues. With this system, you are asking American families to entrust the fate of their health care services to the empty words and deeds of an administration that has repeatedly shown a complete inability to be held accountable. More importantly, with the recent revelations of potentially criminal behavior at the Internal Revenue Service, I am very concerned about trusting that agency's ability to work with CMS and HHS to deliver benefits for Americans through the exchanges. Almost every day we see new indications that the health law is an unmitigated disaster. We are already seeing evidence that health insurance premium costs are continuing to rise and are projected to be, on average, 32 percent higher in the individual market. At the same time, according to numbers released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office, by 2019 almost 14 million Americans who would have had employer-provided coverage will no longer have it. Let me be very clear. ObamaCare is fundamentally flawed. The only real way to fix it is to repeal it and then start again. But until we can accomplish that goal, we need to make sure we are protecting our fellow citizens the best we can from all the negative effects of this law. In addition to overseeing this massive new expansion of benefits, Ms. Tavenner will also be charged with helping to ensure the longevity and solvency of the existing Medicare trust fund, which is projected to go bankrupt in 2024. All told, between now and 2030, 76 million baby boomers will become eligible for Medicare. Even factoring in deaths over that period, the program will grow from approximately 47 million beneficiaries today to roughly 80 million beneficiaries in 2030. Maintaining the solvency of the Medicare Program while continuing to provide care for our ever-increasing beneficiary base is going to require courageous solutions. I have had several conversations with Ms. Tavenner about the need for structural entitlement reforms to ensure that these programs are here for future generations. I sincerely hope we will continue to make progress on these critical issues. Overseeing a massive bureaucracy such as the one at CMS is not a job for the faint of heart. I will be keeping a close eye on Ms. Tavenner as she takes the reins. If she is to be successful, she will have to realize she cannot do it alone. She will have to work with Members of Congress from both parties. I hope she will do so. I believe she will. Thus far I have reason to believe she will be one of the best leaders we can possibly have in the government. However, if it is under her leadership that CMS continues what has become a disappointing pattern in this administration--not responding to legitimate congressional inquiries and throwing promises of transparency by the wayside--I will use the full weight of my position as the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee to hold her and others fully accountable. I do not think I am going to have to do that. I actually think she is that good. I appreciate Ms. Tavenner's willingness to serve in this difficult position. While I still have many concerns about the policies of this administration and the direction CMS is heading, I plan to vote in favor of her confirmation because she has the ability and the potential to be a real leader and already has exemplified that in many ways. I encourage my colleagues to vote for her. I think Marilyn Tavenner is the right prescription at the right time to help with HHS and also with CMS which, as I said, is one of the largest agencies ever in the history of the world. She is a good woman. She is dedicated. She has the ability. I believe she will do a great job. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 116, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to a man I have admired for many years, Earl Holding. Sadly, Earl passed away April 19, 2013 leaving behind a lasting legacy that garnered the respect of many throughout our State and Nation. Earl was a Utah icon--a businessman who reached the highest echelons of the business world--yet spent time to help people from all walks of life, and in many pursuits and interests. His work ethic is legendary. From a young age, Earl put in long days at whatever business he pursued, and he was truly an example of someone who wasn't afraid to roll up his sleeves and get his hands dirty--right along with his employees. In 1949 Earl married his life's partner and eternal sweetheart, Carol Orme. Their marriage was a testament to their partnership as companions--at work and at home. Carol was almost always found at the side of Earl working the land, running hotels, and raising children. They are the proud parents of three children and twelve grandchildren whom they deeply love. Earl's strength as a business leader has been witnessed by many employees he tutored and led in many successful and important companies including the Little America and Grand America hotels, the Snowbasin Ski Resort, and Sinclair Oil. In the 1990s Earl was a driving force in helping to bring the Winter Olympic Games to Salt Lake City. His willingness to build world-class facilities to help stage the games cannot be overlooked as one of the key factors in the utmost success of the 2002 Winter Olympics. His contributions will never be forgotten. Earl and Carol loved the land and enjoyed spending time at their ranches or property throughout the West. He loved to hike, bike, fish, or just enjoy nature in our wonderful part of the world. He had a great reverence for the beauty of our country and always sought to build edifices that paid tribute to that splendor. Utah and our Nation lost a truly great business leader and giant of a man when Earl left this earthly existence. I know that many people will truly miss his strength, leadership, and commitment to excellence. I will miss all of those things, but I will also miss a cherished friend. I am grateful for the relationship Earl and I have enjoyed for many years and the support and wisdom he always shared. Elaine and I convey our deepest sympathies to Carol and their family. May our Heavenly Father bless them with peace and comfort at this time. The contributions and impact Earl made on his family, his community, Utah and our Nation will be felt and appreciated for generations to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, on Monday, before the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Marketplace Fairness Act, I came to the floor to discuss the need to reinstate the committee process in the Senate. I have come to the floor many times over the past few months to talk about the importance of restoring regular order. I know a number of my colleagues share the same concerns. Yet here we are today debating another piece of legislation that has not gone through the full committee. It has not gone through the full committee process, and, once again, it appears we will be getting less than optimal results. I think the legislation before us is a prime example of why regular order is so essential. The Marketplace Fairness Act is a complicated piece of legislation that deserves more thorough examination. I think the bill is well-intentioned, and I am not fundamentally opposed to it. But make no mistake, there are problems with this legislation as it is currently drafted, problems that likely could have been avoided if the Finance Committee had been given an opportunity to fully consider the bill. I also understand the feelings of those who feel otherwise. But the committee chairman offered to have a hearing on a set date, a markup on a set date, and go to the floor. I thought that was a pretty good offer. I am not here today to talk about the process failures we have had with regard to this legislation. I think I have made that point, and others have as well. Instead, I am going to take a few minutes to talk about just a few of the specific problems I see with this legislation and how I propose to fix them. I have filed an amendment that would address some of my concerns. I believe my amendment would make this bill more workable for businesses and consumers around the country. For example, my amendment would implement a 5-year sunset on the taxing authority provided under this legislation. Like I said, this is a complicated bill, and we are not precisely sure what the impact is going to be. Whenever Congress deals with legislation this complex, unintended consequences are to be expected. I believe we need to ensure that Congress has an opportunity to revisit these issues once we have had a chance to see how this bill is implemented. A 5-year sunset would provide that opportunity, but that is not enough. If we are really serious about preventing unintended consequences, we need to change some of the specific provisions of the bill. One particular troublesome aspect of this bill is the preemption provision. In order to downplay the need for regular order on this legislation, proponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act have repeatedly claimed that the bill has been around in some form or another for over 10 years. And, in a sense, that is true. However, none of the previous versions of this bill--including the version that was introduced just 18 months ago--have included a preemption provision. Specifically, this provision states that this legislation ``shall not be construed to preempt or limit any power exercised by a State or local jurisdiction under the law of such State or local jurisdiction or under any other Federal law.'' At first glance this sounds innocuous, but why was it only added to this latest version of the bill? Why was it not included in previous drafts? My concern is that this provision seeks to address an issue that the authors of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement have been wrestling with for years, which is that States are reluctant to surrender any taxing authority at all. I always have been a proponent of States rights. I have fought hard to preserve the right of States to regulate issues within their own spheres in a number of contexts. But we need to recognize, with this provision in place, we would be backing up State laws with Federal enforcement. By passing this legislation as it currently stands, we would be essentially signing off on laws that have not even been written yet. I think it is only reasonable to consider whether we should, after passing this bill, expect more aggressive State sales tax laws to be enacted with the promise of Federal authority to enforce them. My amendment would help us avoid the potential problems with this preemption provision by simply striking it from the bill. As I stated, this is a new provision that deserves more careful examination before being enacted into law. If the Finance Committee had been given an opportunity to examine this provision more thoroughly, it is possible these concerns could have been addressed. But that is not the world in which we are living. Under the current circumstances, this provision should be removed from the bill. I should point out that I am not the only person expressing concern about the potential impact of enforcing new State sales tax laws with Federal authority. That is an important issue. Earlier this week the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association released a statement saying: We believe the impact of this legislation on trade and services has not been adequately explored by Congress. The bill could lead to unexpected costs being passed on to consumers of financial services, including sales taxes on services or state-level stock transaction taxes. On Monday, I quoted from a letter delivered to Senators from the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries that argued: The legislation would allow states to impose a financial transaction tax that would apply to American workers' 401(k) contributions and other transactions within workers' accounts. These are not concerns that can just be cast aside. These are experts in the financial services industry saying there is a set of problems with the way this bill is drafted. I am not saying the Marketplace Fairness Act will automatically create these new taxes on financial services. But unless we are sure the legislation would prohibit such taxes, we may be handing a blank check of Federal power to States that are becoming increasingly aggressive with regard to tax enforcement. That is why my amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to study whether, and under what circumstances, the authority granted under this legislation might allow States to impose taxes on financial transactions or retirement contributions. My amendment provides a simple, straightforward way to address a potentially serious problem with the Marketplace Fairness Act. My amendment would also require the GAO to conduct a study on the costs incurred by remote sellers in complying with the new sales tax requirements that would be imposed by States under this bill. There are serious questions regarding the economic impact of this legislation. We are talking about a bill that would impose new costs on businesses throughout the country--costs that will most certainly impact the ability of these companies to grow and expand. I do not need to tell you that these are perilous economic times. What impact will the Marketplace Fairness Act have on job creation? We simply do not know. This study would help provide us with some answers. But we need to do more to ensure that this legislation will not harm small businesses throughout the country. Another concern I have with this bill is that it could potentially create a situation in which small remote sellers are routinely audited by multiple States at the same time. This would be a severe impediment to small business growth and job creation. I think we need to ensure that this legislation does not impose administrative burdens that crush small remote sellers under an avalanche of paperwork. To help address this concern my amendment would institute a 3-year statute of limitations on State audits of remote sellers. This would provide a uniform rule for State sales tax audits, one that mirrors the current Federal statute of limitations in situations where fraud is not alleged. One of the major driving forces behind this legislation is the fact that over the years, the number of tangible goods purchased over the Internet has increased exponentially. Proponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act believe it is necessary to level the playing field between Internet and brick-and-mortar businesses. While this is a fair point, it does not address the issues surrounding the sale of digital goods. Digital goods are often consumed in places that are not at the location of either the buyer or the seller. That being the case, applying State sales taxes to the purchase of digital goods presents a number of problems that are simply not contemplated or resolved under this bill. Some of my colleagues in the Senate have spent time working on legislation in this area. In addition, the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement has also considered this issue. However, the legislation before us is completely silent on this and other matters. These issues demand more consideration than will be possible under this bill. That is why my amendment includes a carve-out for digital goods. Exempting digital goods from the sales taxes authorized by this legislation will give Congress an opportunity to examine this matter more fully and provide a solution that makes sense. Another problem with this legislation is that it does not take into account the costs businesses will face as they transition into this new sales tax system. There is just no way around it. This bill represents a change to longstanding policy that will require many companies to incur additional costs. For example, as the bill stands as written, businesses that sell into multiple States will likely have to incorporate multiple software packages into their operations or create their own program. Anybody who thinks about it can see that is a big set of problems. Furthermore, an online retailer will still be required to pay interchange fees on all transactions regardless of whether the amounts transacted represent the tax or the price of the item purchased. My amendment would help to address this problem by providing for compensation for remote sellers that will be required to withhold and remit sales taxes as a result of this legislation. A simple, fair system of vendor compensation will help businesses overcome the difficulties of transitioning into the new sales tax regime. The amendment would phase out vendor compensation over a 5-year period. It would begin at 10 percent of amounts collected for 2 years, 8 percent of amounts collected for an additional 2 years after that, and then 6 percent of amounts collected for 1 year. I think this is a reasonable provision. I think it would solve a lot of the problems folks are raising on this bill. This is a simple approach. It would go a long way to ensuring that businesses, particularly small businesses, are not unduly harmed by this legislation. If you hadn't noticed, the common theme running through all of the provisions of my amendment is a desire to protect small businesses. I think we all want to ensure small businesses are allowed to grow, expand, and create jobs. While I do not think the proponents of this bill want to intentionally harm small businesses, I do not think they have done enough to protect them from the burdens this 11-page piece of legislation would impose. Let me give you one more example. Businesses making less than $1 million a year in remote sales would be exempt from the sales taxes authorized under this legislation. That may sound like a fair concession, but it warrants further examination. First of all, previous versions of the bill set the exemption at $5 million a year. Why has that number been reduced over time? Is it an arbitrary number that sounds good or is there a specific target in mind? These are the questions I have when I look at that number. My concern with placing the exemption at $1 million is it could subject smaller regional companies and individual sellers to sales tax burdens in States where they only do a small amount of business. In our already fragile economy the last thing we want to do is discourage the businesses from growing, expanding, and creating new jobs. My amendment would set the exemption at $10 million a year in remote sales. It would also index the level of the exemption to inflation to ensure it does not shrink as the years go by. I recognize coming up with the exact definition of a small business is no easy task. Any number we use will necessarily be a rough figure because it has to encompass different industries and different business models. But setting the exemption at $10 million would protect small businesses in a number of different sectors and ensure we are not discouraging expansion and investment in those types of companies. I have a number of concerns with the Marketplace Fairness Act as it is currently drafted. These are just some of the concerns I have. I have more, but I thought I would at least make these concerns noticeable by talking about them on the floor. My amendment would go a long way toward resolving these concerns. I respect my colleagues who have worked on this legislation over the years. But I want to work with them to improve the bill. I respect the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, the distinguished Senator from Illinois. They are sincere, they are dedicated, they believe they are right. I wish to work with them to improve this bill. Everyone knows if we pass this bill in its current form the House is not going to take it. So we may be doing a thankless act here rather than working, as legislators should do, to improve the bill, make it acceptable, hopefully make it so both Houses will take it, and the President will sign it. But as you can see, there are simply too many problems and too many unanswered questions surrounding this legislation for me to support it as it is. As I have stated, I believe these problems could easily be resolved by a simple return to regular order. Indeed, if the Finance Committee had been given an opportunity to fully examine this legislation, many of these problems would undoubtedly have been solved already. There are people who do not want this bill; I understand that. The chairman of the committee does not want this bill. But he was willing, knowing he would lose, to go ahead with a committee markup, a committee hearing, and a committee battle on the floor. As I said, that is not the world we are living in. Once again, I want to work with my colleagues to improve this bill. I hope they will listen to my concerns and consider the changes my amendment would make. If no changes are made to this legislation, if it is forced through the Senate without any real improvement, I am going to have to vote no. That is not where I want to be, but that is what I would have to do. We have already missed some real opportunities to examine and improve this legislation. I hope we can change course and take a good look at all of these implications surrounding this particular bill. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and that it be in order to call up the following amendments en bloc: Collins 744 or 771; Ayotte 759, as amended; Coats 765; Thune 765, with a GAO study; Thune 778, with a GAO study; Coburn 753; Coburn 767; Thune 743; Lee 768; Ayotte 763; Hatch 754; Portman 772; Cruz 794; Coats 797; Portman 792; Paul 755; Cruz 799; Ayotte 776. I further ask unanimous consent that each amendment be limited to no more than 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form; I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time on each of the amendments, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to each amendment with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to take a moment to say my thoughts and prayers go out to the good people in Boston and other areas where they have had tremendously horrific events and attacks. I hope and pray that all those whose lives were impacted by these tragic events will have a swift and peaceful recovery. I want to commend all of the law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation that brought the hunt for the perpetrators to a successful end.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the last few months I have come to the floor several times to discuss the need for the Senate to return to regular order. If the last several years taught us anything, it is that efforts to force legislation through the Senate without full and fair consideration tend to yield unsatisfying results. Complaints about the lack of bipartisanship have more or less become the norm around here, and we hear all the time about the desire for the so-called grand bargains. Bipartisan agreements don't just happen. I think we would all agree grand bargains cannot be made out of thin air. Luckily the Senate already has a system in place for fostering these types of agreements. It is called regular order. Yet today the Senate will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, and in doing so, the Senate will once again abandon regular order in favor of the whims of the Senate Democratic leadership. This is a bill that falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, but the committee has not had a markup on the bill. Instead the Marketplace Fairness Act is just the latest in a long line of bills brought before the full Senate without due consideration in the committee of jurisdiction. This has become far too common. I understand there are those who feel strongly about this legislation, and I admire them and respect the sponsors of the bill who worked hard to address what they see as a major problem with our Nation's tax policy. However, that simply is not enough to justify yet another abdication of the committee process here in the Senate. The Senate is organized into various committees of jurisdiction so Members are able to develop and utilize their own expertise on specific issues. When a piece of legislation goes through the committee process, it is thoroughly vetted and examined. This provides an opportunity to resolve technical issues and address various concerns before the bill is brought to the floor for a vote. Regular order is not a process designed to protect the power of committee chairmen and ranking members. We have regular order and our committee structure so we have an organized way of ensuring our constituents are fully represented and to make sure the legislation we pass is technically sound. The legislation we will be voting on today is a perfect example of the importance of regular order. The Marketplace Fairness Act is a bill that will have a significant impact on millions of consumers and businesses throughout the country, and clearly, this is no trifling matter. Most reasonable people would agree that a bill of this magnitude would benefit from full and fair committee consideration, including a markup with an open debate and an opportunity to vote on amendments before it is brought to the floor. However, being reasonable doesn't appear to be part of the equation on the floor today. I want to stress I am not fundamentally opposed to this legislation. My goal is not to stop it at all costs. Instead, I simply want to ensure it is fully vetted and examined. I know if all sides are able to look at this in a dispassionate way, we might find ways of bringing all sides together, and that is not going to happen the way it is being done now. Therefore, today's vote is, in my view at least, as much a vote on regular order as it is a vote on the underlying bill. That said, I do have specific concerns about the legislation as it is currently drafted. To begin with, the Marketplace Fairness Act in its current form is a fairly short 11 pages long. This bill essentially provides two avenues for States to compel remote sellers or out-of- State businesses to collect and remit sales and use taxes. Under the bill, the State may either meet specified minimum requirements or be a member State under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, as long as the minimum requirements are met under the agreement. The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement is a good deal more complicated than the Marketplace Fairness Act. For starters, at 203 pages, the agreement is about 18 times longer. Since its adoption on November 12, 2002, the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement has been amended 28 times, most recently last year. It is not a simple little problem here. The streamlined sales tax governing board has done excellent work in bringing States together to cooperatively and voluntarily address the issues of sales and use tax complexity and administration, just to mention a few issues. According to the streamlined sales tax governing board, 24 States have adopted the simplification measures in the agreement, representing 31 percent of the population. The authors of the Marketplace Fairness Act hope to apply its measures to all 50 States and 100 percent of the population. However, the bill is comparatively short on details. For example, the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement contains provisions on rules for the sourcing of sales, along with exclusions to those rules. In order to levy the appropriate sales tax, the location and subject matter of the transaction must be determined. This level of detail is not present in the Marketplace Fairness Act. It is unclear if the floor established on sourcing requirements under this bill is sufficient to protect consumers from unintended consequences. For example, I have received a letter from the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries which is worried that this legislation ``would allow states to impose a financial transaction tax that would apply to American workers' 401(k) contributions and other transactions within workers' accounts.'' Another concern I have with the current version of the Marketplace Fairness Act is that it contains a preemption clause which could make it possible for States to expand the reach of their sales taxes through creative legislating. The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement at least provides an avenue for the input of multiple States. The States that are not subject to the agreement would, under this bill, be able to legislate knowing that the Federal Government will compel enforcement of their tax law on nonresidents. I am concerned with the transition costs that will come with this legislation for retailers who have been operating in an environment where they have not been required to collect and remit sales taxes for States where they do not have a physical presence. This legislation would change that almost in an instant. Before we enact a new sales tax system, we need to take into account the costs that system will impose on businesses of all sizes and the difficulties these companies will face as they adapt to the new regime. For example, there is the issue of vendor compensation. The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement currently includes a provision giving States the opportunity to voluntarily compensate remote sellers ``as a measure of good faith'' for registering to voluntarily collect and remit sales taxes into States where the seller has no physical presence. This is included in the agreement because under the current law remote sellers are generally not required to collect and remit the sales tax, and they incur a cost when they do so. The Marketplace Fairness Act does not include any provision for compensation of remote sellers. I believe this is something we must take into account and examine even more thoroughly. I am also concerned about the small-seller exemption in the bill which would exempt sellers with national remote sales of less than $1 million from the new requirements to collect and withhold sales taxes. This seems like an important concession, but it is not without its problems. First of all, the cap on the exemption is not indexed to inflation. I think anyone who has observed any part of the roughly 50-year process where the alternative minimum tax has grown from a fairness measure targeting the rich to an ever-increasing burden on the middle class should understand how inflation can radically distort policy outcomes over a period of time. In addition, there are many who argue that the $1 million exemption may be too low. In my view, these are concerns we need to fully consider before bringing the bill to the floor. Finally, I want to point out that the bill does not include a provision for a dispute resolution venue. Ideally the bill would give Federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction in matters concerning the implementation of this legislation. Policy changes with such far-reaching effects inevitably lead to unexpected issues and consequences. Giving Federal courts this jurisdiction would ensure greater uniformity and application of this legislation across the country. These are only a few of the concerns I have regarding the Marketplace Fairness Act. I don't believe these are necessarily fundamental concerns, but they are issues that need to be addressed. I am quite certain that, if given an opportunity, the Finance Committee could address these issues without inexorably changing the underlying purpose of the bill. However, if we proceed with floor debate on the Marketplace Fairness Act as is, we will not have that opportunity. The Senate simply cannot continue to operate this way. Once again, we need to restore the deliberative traditions of the Senate, and that means a return to regular order. I know a number of my colleagues have expressed similar concerns about the need to restore the committee process in the Senate. I hope they will join with me in voting no on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Marketplace Fairness Act. This doesn't necessarily determine how I am going to vote on the final analysis of this, but I sure as heck would like to approach this in a much more intelligent and legislatively profound way than we are doing here tonight. By the way, we can talk about the fairness of this thing, but there are a lot of stakeholders that are not quite convinced this is as fair as those who are supporting the bill actually claim. I hope we can have a more deliberative process to examine these matters. The distinguished chairman of the committee has offered to have a hearing on the bill, mark up the bill, and consider it in a regular-order approach in the immediate future as soon as we get back from this next recess. Frankly, I think that is a pretty good offer, and it is one we ought to honor if we honor our committee structure in the Senate. I yield the floor.