hospital managers, physicians, and for a very limited number he'll have that as well. but for where we've seen a lot of problems, he won't be able to fire people who have directly harmed our veterans. so we haven't given him the tools to create the environmental chapping tha thats to happen and the cultural chapping had a has to happen in the veterans organization. the other thing that i would note is if you look at the requirement for primary care physicians and physician extenders -- nurse practitioners and p.a.'s -- their patient load is about a fourth of what the private practitioners in this country are. that's not true clinic to clinic, but on average that's true. in oklahoma, we have had some great physicians that work every night until 10:00 taking care of

veterans. we have great caregivers in lots of instawnse instances, but we t of stinkers. and on average we're not deed manning of dosh demanding of them what -- we're not demanding of them what the priet private sector does. we're going to finally have the v.a. clinics and hospitals reporting outcomes, just like every other hospital in this country. has to report. if they take medical dollars or medicaid dlarks thedollars, thet their death rates, infection rates, quality of care. they have to be -- they have to be reported. they also -- their physicians have to be -- not true in the v.a. if they're not ce engse credente v.a. patient will know. those are positive aequities of

this bill. what is not positive is the fact that we won't fix the real problem and we're tbg t going ty we d and we're dpg to spend our grandkids' money saying we did over a very short period of time and still not hold the organization accountable. it is unconscionable to me after a 60% increase in funding over the last four years that we would take and borrow against our children's future an additional $12 billion when we have all this waste throughout the federal government and in the v.a. and say, that's the best congress could do. i think that's an incrimination upon congress, and it is a dereliction of our duty to both our republic but also our

future. so i will be doing a couple of things. i will be raising a point of order against this bill, one. number is i wil two is i will bg against t and let me it will you a little bit why i am voting against it. this last week -- actually, yesterday i talked to a vietnam veteran who is 100% disabled who presented to the emergency room of a major v.a. hospital in this country with chest pain. this patient was observed for two hours. she had no acute changes on her e.k.g., but she had, any doctor would know, unstable angina. her pain never went away. she was sent home. less than 48 hours, she presented to an emergency room in her local community and an hour after that had three extents placed in her left coronary art rhode island she

wa-- artery.she was ignored med. that's happening today, as we've had this discussion. another wonderful retired veteran in oklahoma had to have a knee replaced, went to the v.a. she was service-connected. had her knee replaced. it was a failure. she had to have it done again. a couple years later, her other knee needed to be replaced. they replaced her knee. it failed. as they replaced the second knee, as can happen, they fractured her feherfemme femur. today she walks with a limp because her left leg is a half an inch shorter than her right one. the likelihood of that happening to one individual is about one

in 10 million. -- 10 billion. that never gets reported. you can break a femur doing a knee prosthesis. there is no question about that. but five major surgeries? that means the outcomes don't compare. when this v.a. episode started soaking up, as a physician, i went to the medical literature and looked at all the studies that have been published on v.a. care, lexis-nexis, looked at all of them. you know what they showed? v.a. is better than any place in america. that's what the studies show. except when you drill out on it the way they were cheating on appointments is they were cheating on out-kossment outcom. in other words, the outcomes weren't accurate. so the culture is one of looking

good, protecting those within the v.a., and not protecting our veterans. and, again, i would say that does not apply to all the v.a. employees. the vast majority of them are great. but the leadership has stopped. you have to have a bill that fixes that. i don't believe this is going to do it. i'd also like to talk about whistle-blowers because i've had a multitude of whistle-blowers who i have investigated their complaints and found to be truthful, and the culture at the v.a. against whistle-blowers has been there's been a channel in the past from whistle-blowers back to management. you know what happens to them? they get fired, they get dmeeted, they -- they get demoted, they get harassed. they end ultimately leaving. these are the people who conveyor, whconveyor, who want -

these are the people who care, who want to make it better. this is the responsibility of secretary mcdonald. he has the responsibility to fix this but only if we give him the tools. my fear is we won't have given him the tools with this bill. the final point i would make -- and i think we all ought to think about, every american ought to think about it -- if somebody comes in -- remember, we're an all-volunteer army right now. if somebody has served this country in combat putting their life on the line to protect us, to protect our way of life, to protect the very freedoms that we cherish, should that same individual ever be at the back of the line on anything related to health care? -- that's associated with their service? they should be at the front -- they should be ahead of every senator, every president, every

doctor. they should get the first care, not the last. they should get the best care, not the worst. that ought to be -- it is the veterans' v.a. system, not ours. it is for them. and when they no longer are the object of service by this country for them, for their sacrifice, then we're in a whole lot bigger trouble than any of us realize. we've turned things upside down. union representation at the v.a. is more important thank the v.a. patient -- than the v.a. patient. benefits for v.a. managers are more important than the v.a. patient. is that right? so the one critical thing that really needs to happen to clean up the v.a. is to give veterans the absolute choice to go where every they want, their freedom

to choose whatever care they want based on what they've done for us. and by doing that, the v.a. will either have to become competitive and just as good or they should die. we've not done that in this bill. we need to do that in this bill. we have centers of excellence in the v.a. that beat all the private industry, all the private health care when this comes to prosthetics, to closed head injury, when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. we're great, the v.a. is great, but in too many areas it's not. tell me this bill will change all that, i'll vote for it, even if it does sacrifice our children. but it won't. i won't be here when you assess the results of this bill, but i can predict what it'll be: more of the same, too much

money, not enough leadership. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i'd ask that i be allowed to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. before i speak on the topic of the affordable care act, reports are emnchinreportsare emerging f representatives is going to adjourn without taking any vote on a border supplemental that would allow this country to humanely deal with a crisis of epidemic proportions on our border, as over 50,000 children right now are being warehoused shoulder to shoulder without any sign from the united states congress of help coming. there are legitimate differences over in what manner we provide this emergency funding to try to deal with this humanitarian

crisis, but shame on the house of representatives if they leave town today without even having attempted to take a vote on a supplemental appropriations bill for the border. madam president, i was in the chair yesterday, as i listened to about three or four of our republican colleagues come down to the floor, as they often do, and register their ongoing complaints about the affordable care act. and as has been the trend line over the past four months, those complaints have moved from those rooted in data to those rooted in anecdote. and there is no doubt that there are people in every single state in this country who continue to have poor interactions with the american health care system. it's one-sixth of our economy, and just as was the case before the affordable care act will be the case after the affordable

care act. there are many people who will still pay too much, and there are still plenty of people who will not get enough in return. but i wanted to spend a little bit of time on the floor today talking about what the actual data shows us, what the empirical evidence shows us. and it is overwhelming in its conclusion, that the affordable care act is working, in many respects working better than anybody thought it would. and so i want to take my colleagues' arguments one at a time. the first is a pretty simple o one. every bad interaction that happens in the american health care system is not the fault of the affordable care act. i woke up a couple days ago with a sore throat, but that wasn't president obama's fault. that wasn't the fault of the affordable care act. i had kind of a rough day. but i understand that there are bad things that are going to continue to happen to me, especially when it comes to health care, that can't necessarily be fixed by the affordable care act. and so one of the ongoing

statistics that's used is the number of people who have had their plans canceled. well, most of the nonpartisan medical journals who have surveyed the number of cancellations before the affordable care act and the number of cancellations after the affordable care act suggest that this has been a problem that has been yn going for -- that has been ongoing for years, that there is pretty substantial churn every year. the affordable care act isn't solely responsible for the fact that plans are being canceled. people will still pay a lot in premiums. the affordable care act makes it better. there are a lot less premium increases of over 10% since the affordable care act was passed than before it was passed. but every time that somebody is paying more than they would like for the health care that they receive, that's not the fault of the affordable care act. the second is this difference between data and anecdote. and so let me just spend a few minutes talking about what the ongoing avalanche of

information, of data, of statistics tells us. so many of my colleagues come down and talk about the huge rates that people are paying for health care, blame it on the affordable care act. the average premium that individuals paid for a plan on one of the affordable care act exchanges over the course of the first year of its implementation was $82 per month. $82 per month. now, there are some people who are paying more, but the average is $82 per month. that is a pretty sweet deal to get health care coverage in this country. and they needed it. a study shows that 60% of adults with new coverage used it, and 60% of those individuals say they could have never afforded to get the care had they not had insurance in the first place.

and people like it. consumer survey after consumer survey show that the majority of people who are on these new plans want to keep it and have said that their experience has been good, excellent, or satisfactory. so that's the real story about what's happening on the exchanges. what about cost? my colleagues say, well, this really hasn't done anything to control costs. that's not the case. health care inflation in this country is at a 50-year low, her medicare spending -- that's the money we all pay as federal taxpayers, is $1,000 per beneficiary lower than it was projected to be in 2014. a thousand dollars in spending per individual has disappeared from the system. and a large part of the reason for that is the affordable care act. we had a bipartisan briefing sponsored by the commonwealth fund this week and both the

republican economist and the democratic economist believe that the affordable care act -- not solely responsible for that reduction in price but is a big, big part of that cost reduction story. now, people will say but it's not coming through on premiums. we're still seeing premium increases that are bigger than we'd we would like. they are smaller than they were before the affordable care act but the affordable care act also has this provision in it that requires insurance companies to spend a certain percentage of all the money they collect on care and if they pad their profits with too much of your premium, then they have to return that money to you. well, we just found out that consumers have already saved $330 million in money that was directly returned to them, and overall have saved $9 billion in savings on premiums because of this provision, which essentially says if you get charged too much, the insurance company now can't keep that

money for themselves, they have to return it to you. that's the best protection you can have from premiums that are too high and it's not theoretical, it's practical, $330 million in checks written by insurance companies given to individuals. so the data continues to show us that the affordable care act is working. and i haven't even gotten into the data i've brought down here week after week which is stunning in terms of the number of people who now have insurance, eight million people insured on the exchanges, a 25% reduction in the number of uninsured in this country. even the most optimistic of a.c.a. supporters could have thought we could have a 25% reduction in the first six months of implementation. the numbers don't lie. but here's my last point. senators and members of congress who come down and complain about the performance of the affordable care act in their

state when their state has done everything in its power to undermine the affordable care act have some explaining to do. the reality is that there are states like connecticut that are working hard to implement the affordable care act and there are other states that are working to undermine the affordable care act. the affordable care act works really well in states that want it to work, and it has a little bit more trouble in states that are trying to undermine it. let me give you an example that comes from a speech given earlier on the floor by senator nelson. senator nelson talked about how florida through its republican positive and republican legislature has taken away from the insurance commissioner the ability to approve increases in insurance rates. and so guess what, they are seeing premium increases that are rather unappetizing to florida residents because the legislature has taken away from the government the ability to monitor, review and approve those rates. compare that with the state of connecticut which is working hard to implement the affordable

care act, and act on behalf of ratepayers and consumers. our biggest insurer a couple months ago proposed a 12% increase in rates under the affordable care act. in connecticut's exchange. we have the ability to review those rates in connecticut. we did that and the insurance commission in our state just two days ago came back and reduced that rate increase from 12% to 1%. blue cross/blue shield is not going to stop offering insurance on the connecticut exchange, they are just going to do it with a rate increase that is commensurate with the actual increase in cost of care to anthem rather than a number that is not based on actual data. so in a state like connecticut where we've seen twice as many people enroll as we originally estimated where we've seen medicaid expansion provide access to insurance for thousands monday thousands of connecticut residents who have insurance in a way that people

in florida do not because of their lack of medicaid expansion, we also have taken steps to protect consumers from premium increases. so for colleagues who are going to complain about high premium increases, you have to acknowledge that there are steps that your state could have taken to make it better. for colleagues who talk about the fact there aren't enough people enrolled, your state could have taken steps to enroll more people. not everything is the affordable care act's fault when things go wrong for families. the data does not back up the anecdotes that are brought to this floor, and in states that are working to implement the law, it works a lot better than in states that are working to undermine it. the story is clear, whether it's on the decrease in people that don't have insurance, the decreasing rate of medical inflation all across the country, or the improving

quality of health care in every corner of this nation, the affordable care act is working. i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam chairman, i see two of my colleagues who are here. i ask unanimous consent that senator barrasso -- how much time do you need? that he be given ten minutes and then senator sessions three minutes and then the time turned over to me to be able to deliver my full remarks.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hatch: did the chair rule? the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. mr. hatch: madam chairman -- mr. murphy: would the legislation modify the request to allow senator bennet to alternate with one of the republican speakers in this series of remarks? mr. hatch: i was supposed to speak here at 2:15. mr. murphy: i'll withdraw my request for modification. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: madam president, i've come to the floor to discuss some of the issues that related to the health care law, and the side effects of the health care law, and i see my friend and colleague who has just spoken on this issue from the state of connecticut, a place where i spent five years as part of my residency program, training, so i followed the developments in that state quite a bit and talked to many of the physicians who practice there on a regular basis, some of whom i've studied with for up to five years. so they've routinely sent me articles about the failure of the president's health care law in connecticut because remember, the president said actually the costs would go down, not up, under the president's health care law. i think he said $2,500 per family per year. nancy pelosi on "meet the press" said costs would go down for everyone. down for everyone.

she didn't say they'd go up a little. she didn't say they'd go up at all. she said they would go down for everyone and this was in the last two years. so i come to the floor noting that just the other day the hartford -- the headline story in connecticut said that one of the insurance companies was seeking a 12.5% rate increase. the obamacare side effects, norwich bulletin, anthem seeks 12.5% rate increase niche. i heard my colleague from connecticut say the insurance commissioner wouldn't allow it to go up that much but did allow it to go up. said it was going up is what my colleague just said on the floor. perhaps not as much as this, but certainly the president said they were going to go down by $2,500 a family. nancy pelosi said, the speaker of the house, said they were going to go down for everyone.

and in connecticut people who believed the president, people who believed the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, realized that they weren't told the truth. rates even after this 12.5% request was reviewed and lessened, the rate still went up. so i look at these headlines, another story out in the daily caller, obamacare, now even more states report double-digit premium hikes, they talk about vermont, talk about arizona, states where premiums are going up over 10%. i look at the story in "politico" last month, connecticut exchange reports breach, breach of security of individual people. hundreds of names left on the sidewalk with social security numbers, with addresses, with information about them.

a story coming out of the connecticut mirror, connecticut's latinos face hurdles in enrolling in obamacare. says no group of people in connecticut is more likely to be uninsured than the state's latinos, and obamacare won't change that. i just heard from my colleague that it's working. not according to the press in his home state. july 1, 2014, connecticut mirror, auditors question access health connecticut's internal controls. federal auditors reported tuesday -- these aren't individual stories of one person or another because we know all across connecticut there are themselves families that have been dropped, people that have had problems, individuals who are being hurt. access -- health connecticut says it will start calling thousands of customers friday -- this was earlier this month. 5784 customers identified as

having incorrect tax creates under this program that my colleague said is working in his home state. it says 3,900 customers in connecticut were told they qualified for government-funded medicaid coverage when in fact they did not. it said an ungnome number of customers got a bill from are in insurance company more than they expected, 903 customers were dropped by their insurers. these are the facts, madam president. so when i hear that the federal auditors are questioning that connecticut's internal controls, and then look at a story -- many stories about doctors who are saying no to obamacare, but a report, connecticut is less competitive after federal health care reform in "the hartford courant." it just reminds me, madam president, that there are so many side effects of this health care law, all across the country, stories from every

state, premiums are going up, people are having to pay more in co-pays, people are having to pay more in terms of their deductibles, and people continue to be offended that they were not told the truth. the rates continue to go up, the president said they would go down, nancy pelosi said they would go down for everyone. that is not the case, madam president, and i think what i'm hearing also from patients at home is people just believe that washington is in control of their health care right now, not the individual. mr. murphy: will the gentleman yield? mr. barrasso: i'll yield for a question. the presiding officer: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. murphy: thank you, senator barrasso. i appreciate the amount of time you've taken to educate my colleagues on connecticut's success in adding 200,000 people to the rolls of the insured, but the chart that you just had up next to you for the majority

of your remarks about anthem's request to increase rates in connecticut by 12% is frankly the best advertisement you could make for affordable care act because under the affordable care act, states are given the ability to review these rate increases and modify them. connecticut has taken advantage of that, and had you read the papers from two days ago rather than taking a headline from several months ago, you would have seen that the connecticut insurance commission rejected the 12% increase and actually approved a 1% increase, and regardless of someone's claim that insurance premiums were going to go down, my constituents in connecticut will be very welcome to take a 1% increase in premiums should you repeal the affordable care act, parts or all of it, you would remove from many states the ability to offer these plans in the first place or to be able to monitor them. so i appreciate you putting a

months-old headline on the floor of the senate but yesterday's headline actually tells us that because of the affordable care act, rates under the exchange for the people of the state of connecticut will be at historic lows in terms of premium increases. and i just want to, given the fact that you're putting up news about the state of connecticut, i want to make sure you're putting up the latest and most accurate news about our state. mr. barrasso: madam president, i didn't hear a question posed in that but i concur. and i mentioned in my remarks, as the senator from connecticut has said, that the rates were not l allowed to go up to the double-digit request, although i'll also mention that they are going up by double digits in many other states. but yet the president of the united states said the rates would go down by $2,500 per family per year. and the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, who was speaker when the member from connecticut was a member of the house and

voted for the health care law, said they would go down, and she said this on "meet the press," said they would go down for everyone, and that's not the case. the case is, as i continue to say on the floor of this body, madam president, rates are going up across the country. the president promised something else. what people are seeing is higher premium rates, higher deductibles, higher co-pays, loss of doctors. they feel that washington is taking control over their lives. and lower paychecks which we're seeing in connecticut as people try to comply with the 30-hour workweek requirements which are causing school districts to have to choose even hiring reading teachers as a result of the mandates of the health care law. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and return to senator hatch. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. hatch: if i understand it, there will be three minutes for the senator from alabama and then i will be able to deliver my full remarks. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. sessions: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank senator hatch. i want to say, colleagues, how much i appreciate the work of all the members who worked on the veterans bill. we got some difficulties there of a very serious nature. all of us want to fix that. and the bill that came out of the senate, i was not able to support. we learned just minutes before the vote that the average cost in the outer years would be $50 billion a year if the program was funded and there was no money to pay for that. it would just be really adding to the debt. and it was sort of avoided by saying it was a three-year deal. once you start these kind of

motions rolling, they would never seem to end and we'll be faced with a difficult situation financially. so the conference committee went to work. i salute all the people that worked on this. it has some good policy issues in it. senator tom coburn who spoke earlier was engaged in that conference. he's a doctor. he understands these matters. he cares about them and was actively engaged, as we all know. and let me just say, in tom coburn, we have one of the senate's finest, committed senators. he loves this country. every day he tries to save us money and make us more productive. there's nobody here that works harder and is more effective in that. and he says we need to do better. he's not able to support the conference report, and that it will add, we know, at least $10 billion to the debt in three years. better than before, i will acknowledge. and as a result, he will raise a

point of order against it. and i would say i have to support that. let me just say this. doctors do not carry the kinds of patient caseloads that private doctors do. while we have some policy changes that are good, more are needed. are we going to have this new administrator -- we're going to have this new administrator, very impressed with him. west point, five years in the military, procter & gamble c.e.o. he's got bipartisan support here, a lot of confidence and a lot of hope is being placed in him. i think the better action for us today, colleagues, is to not try to establish big policy changes that continue indefinitely at great expense. the better choice for us today, let's wait a bit. let's see how effective this new leader is, see how much money he

can save without reducing benefits, and then maybe he'll be able to share with us some ideas from top-flight, world-class businessman that could help us develop policies that serve our veterans. because we have an absolute commitment to serve them and fulfill the responsibilities had a we have. so reluctantly, i would not be able -- i would have to support the budget point of order. but if it were to be sustained -- and probably not because people want to go forward and do this. if it were to be sustained, i am confident we would be able to work with the new administration and develop an even better plan for securing the benefits for our veterans that they've earned and are entitled to. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. hatch: madam president, in recent days i've twice spoken here on the floor not about a particular issue, bill or nomination pending before the senate, but about the senate itself. while issues, bills and nominations and even partisan majorities come and go, the senate as an institution must remain. and remain not only in some tattered form, some distorted shadow of its former self. rather, the senate must remain as it was designed to be. the political winds may blow, but the institution must stand strong. unfortunately, in my 38 years of service in this body, i have never seen it weaker than it is today. there once was a consensus here not only about the need to keep this institution strong, but also about how to do it. that consensus evolved from how the framers designed this body so that it could play its unique role in the system of

government that they inspirationally crafted. james madison, for example, remarked at the 1787 constitutional convention that the senate's proceedings should have more coolness, more system, and more wisdom than the house of representatives. he wasn't talking about coolness in the way our teenagers talk about it today. the house is designed for more or less direct expression of the popular will and operates by simple majority. by contrast, the senate is designed for deliberation. it has for more than two centuries operated by supermajority and even unanimous consent. this fundamental difference between the house and the senate is by expressed design, not historical accident. and it is the conjunction of the two that makes the legislative branch work in the manner that the framers intended. this basic principle of bicameralism is above politics and above party.

madam president, this long-standing consensus about the importance of the senate posts unique -- senate's unique design and how it must operate to fulfill its constitutional role has all but fallen apart over the last few years. i began addressing this problem in earnest last week and will continue to do so in the weeks ahead, and i might add in the months to come, urging my colleagues toed history's wis -- to heed history's wisdom and change course. my friend from tennessee has also spoken out with great passion on this issue, developing a thoughtful assessment of the senate's institutional decay. two long time colleagues in this body one democrat and one republican offered similar critiques when leaving the senate in the last few years. for 30 years i served in this body with my friend from connecticut, senator christopher dodd. in his final speech here on the senate floor on november 30, 2010, he observed that the senate was established as a

place where every member's voice could be heard and where deliberation and even dissent would be valued and respected. senator dodd explained -- quote -- "our founders were concerned not only with what was legislated, but just as importantly, with how we legislated." he urged senators to resist the temptation to abandon the senate's long-standing traditions to make it -- quote -- "more like the house of representatives where the majority can essentially bend the minority to its will." two years later senator olympia snowe concluded her three terms in the senate, representing the state of maine in this body with a reflection on the state and the state of the senate. she observed that a commitment to the rights of the minority helped ensure that the senate would be a body where all voices are heard. senator snowe concluded, however, that -- quote -- "the senate is not living up to what

the founding fathers envisioned." in large part by ignoring the minority's rights, senator dodd concluded his senate service in the majority while senator snowe concluded her in the minority, but their assessment was the same: a leading democrat and a leading republican. that is what a consensus looks like. they shared an understanding of the unique role the senate was designed to play in our system of government and they knew from experience that the senate is not operating by that design today. diagnosing our current institutional ills and prescribing a path back to health must begin by recognizing the primacy of the senate's purpose designed and placed in our system of government. without the anchor of these principles which have throughout the senate's history been shared throughout this body, across all partisan and ideological lines, the gamesman ship for politics and quest for power will

decimate our contribution to the legislative process. unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening today. madam president, in my previous remarks, i noted that many of the sage students of the senate from vice president adlai stevenson in the 18th century to senator robert c. byrd of west virginia of our time, all identified the same two features as critical to the senate's proper functioning. the right of amendment and the right to debate. it is not difficult to see how they served the critical function of setting the senate apart from the house. these rights temper majority rule. they emphasize individuals over parties and factions. they ensure that all voices can be heard and they encourage deliberation and, yes, even beneficial compromise. these rights secure a substantive role for all senators, even those in the minority, in how the senate

legislates, a feature that does not exist in how the house operates. during my service throughout the past four decades, the senate has often lived up to these ideals. for example, i worked with the junior senator from iowa on the americans with disabilities act which the senate in 1789 passed by a vote of 76-8. at that time democrats held 55 senate seats, just as they do today. this body addressed amendments on the floor offered by both democrats and republicans on issues ranging from tax credits for small businesses to accessibility of buses. on a single day in september in 1989 the senate adopted nearly twice as many minority amendments to this single bill than the senate today has adopted in more than a year. today the majority leader uses his right to prior recognition to eliminate virtually all opportunities for amendments unless he agrees to them.

and even then, he generally stops amendments. he's used this procedural maneuver calling, filling the amendment tree more than twice as often as the previous six majority leaders combined. there is a time when you can fill the amendment tree and that's after you've had full, fair debate, after you've had all the amendments that you want to bring up that are reasonable. and that's when a reasonable time has been given to the bills and there have been a number of votes. yet when he was in the minority, even he condemned this very tactic as -- quote -- "a very bad practice" and he explains it -- quote -- "runs against the basic nature of the senate." he was rietd then, but -- he was right then but he is wrong now. perhaps the majority leader has reconsidered what he believes to be the basic nature of the senate. perhaps he now believes that

denying the minority's right to offer amendments is a very good rather than a very bad practice. if he does, then i think he, of all people, owes the senate an explanation. i don't think he believes that. otherwise, such an about-face is nothing more than a desire to rig the rules so that he can win all the games. and in the process he is destroying the senate itself. and when i say games, i don't really mean games. so he won all the votes, and he can put the senate in any motion he wants to without any real rights in the minority. then the process -- in the process he's destroying the senate itself, destroying the institutional character bistics bistics -- characteristics the founders thought important to our design and the traditions that enabled the senate to serve

the common good throughout our nation's history. the other defining feature, the right to unlimited debate is also under attack. by empowering that minority that right has always annoyed the majority, whether we've been in the minority or whether we've been in the majority. and vice versa. but a little history can provide a lot perspective for us today. for moreen this a century, ending debate on anything required unanimous consent. a single senator could prevent a final vote on a matter by preventing an end to debate. the senate adopt add rule in 1917 that lowered the threshold to two-thirds. not until 1975 was the threshold lowered to three-fifths, where it stands stayed. stands -- where it stands today. it is easier to end debate today than ever before in the senate's history, but that is not enough for the cept current majority. urged on by the senators who have not served in the not the

majority does not want any obstacle to stand in its way, not even fair debate. last november, the majority leader lowered the threshold to end debate on the nominations from a supermajority to a simple majority. it ended more than 200 years of senate practice and effectively eliminated the minority' minorie in the confirmation process. as i have detailed here on the senate floor and in print, the minority leader's reasons for this revolution amounted to filibuster fraud. at the time that he invoked the so-called nuclear orntion the senate has -- nuclear option, the senate had confirmed 98% of president obama's nominations and filibusters, of course, were on the decline. but 99% was not just good -- but 98% was not just good enough for the majority. i noted the majority leader's

about-face. he defended the when in the minority and suppressed it when in the majority. when he was in the not he voted more than two dozen times for filibusters of republican judicial nominees. the democrats are the ones who started that. and then last november once in the majority, he aboll ieshed the right to -- abolished the right to debate nominations. while the majority leader effectively neutralized the senate cloture rule to stop the minority from debating nominations, he has also used it to stop debating legislation. he again uses his right of priority recognition to bring up a bill and at the very same time file a motion to end debate. but it makes no sense to speak of ending debate ending what he wrongly characterizes as a republican filibuster when such debate had no chance to begin with.

the majority leader uses this cloture rule not to end debate but to prevent it altogether. just like the practice of filling the amendment tree, the majority leader is suing his position to prevent debate far more often than any of his predecessors. unlike the current majority leader, most senators on the other side of the aisle hav nevr served in the -- have never served in the minority. 56 have served here only under the current leadership. unfortunately, this means that most senators serving today have only witnessed leadership that prefers power to principle and is rapidly dismantling the longstanding practices and traditions of an institution that took centuries to build. the only leadership that most senators sesqui today have experienced -- serving today have experienced uses parliamentary maneuvers to deny senatorial rights so that the partisan ends justify the procedural means.

the current senate leadership is wrong. the road we are on today leads to only one destination: just as maintaining the integrity of the senate's design is essential to its proper role in our system of government, attacking that integrity and dismantling that foundation can only destroy that proper role. and since the senate's proper role is essential for protecting the liberties of the american people, destroying those longstanding practices and traditions puts our liberties at risk. the minority leader spoke here in january g january about the f senate and noted thasenate. at the beginning of my first term, there were only 38 republican senators, not even enough to end debate under senate rules.

democrats have not been in such a small minority in nearly 60 years. according to the brookings institution and american enterprise institute, 42% of all roll call votes during my first two years here were so-called party unity votes in which a majority of each party sticks together and votes in opposite ways. that means the majority of votes involve senators reaching across the aisle. in the last several years under the current leadership, however, even though the margin between parties is narrower, the percentage of such party unity votes has risen to 62%. this trend of retreating to partisan corners is yet another indication that this body is becoming like the house and, thrfort, abandoning the tradition of unlimited debate and amendments at the very core of the senate's identity.

the way senator snowe described it the great challenge is to create and maintain a system -- quote -- "that gives our elected officials reasons to look past their differences and find common ground, if their initial party positions fail to garner sufficient support." the senate's design provided those reasons and those incentives and undermining that design destroys them. building is much harder and takes much longer than destroying. the current leadership's recklessness in choosing power over principle is dismantling what took centuries to establish. that does not, however, mean that it cannot be changed. senator dodd suggested the formula for a better course when he distinguished what we legislate from how we legislate. restoring the senate as the world's greatest deliberative body requires recommitting ourselves to the principles of how we legislate so that we can

properly discuss and debate what we should legislate. we must first restore the longstanding consensus about the rules, proark procedures, and traditions governing how the senate is run. only then can we discuss and liberty and legislate in a constructive manner. in addition to restoring many of this body's fundamental rights of amendment and debate, the minority leader spoke in january about restoring a vigorous and meaningful committee process. these elements of our legislative process are related and they are complementary. increasingly, bills are drafted in the leader's office an taken directly to the full senate for consideration where the minority will immediately fill the amendment tree and file an amendment to end debate. in my 38 years in this body, i have never seen a consolidation of so much power in so few hands. america's founders were right in the principles of government they laid out and in the

institutional design they built on those principles. but they did so at the beginning of this journey creating the blueprint before anything had been built. i fear that returning to the right path may be even harder than embarking on it. the majority today has engaged in this hostile takeover of the senate for one simple reason: aggrandizing power. but, remember, the axiom that power tends to corrupt. it takes principle harder to see, fainter to hear. it makes principle harder to see, fairer to hear, and tougher to grasp. and it makes principle very difficult to restore. restoration will require believing in something greater than power, something more important than the bill or nomination on the calendar, something more significant than the latest polling numbers. it will require holding fast to a system that can provide power today but take that power away

tomorrow. winston churchill famously said that -- quote -- "democracy is the worst form of government except for those other forms that have been tried from time to time." there's certainly wisdom in that. consider when churchill said it. he was speaking on the floor of the british house of commons on november 11, 1947, two years after his party lost half its seats in the parliament. and the labour party led its first majority government. churchill expressed his faith in the very form of government that had turned his party into a small minority. we continue on path the current senate leadership has charted on our peril, not just the peril of this institution but the peril of this system of government and the liberties that it makes possible for the american people. this may sound like a grand statement, but remember when senator byrd repeatedly told us -- remember what he said:

so long as the senate's defining features such as the right of amendments and debate remain intact," he said, "the liberties of the people are secure." there's perhaps no greater statement of principle regarding this nation than our declaration of independence, which asserts that the government exists to secure the inalienable rights of the people. that is why we are here, and that should be our reason to change course, not simply partisan advantage or ideological superiority but liberty, the liberty we enjoy in america did not occur by chance. it will not survive by neglect, and it cannot thrive by preferring power over principle. my staff and i recent sliftd the national archives and saw the words engravinged beneath one of the statues at the entrance

"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." i hope we can turn this around. i hope that the leadership of the majority will waning and realize that someday they may be in the minority. i don't know when, but someday they will be. and if they were treated like we're being treated, i can just hear the ful fulmonitions up and down the senate. these principles are more important than either party and whether democrats or republicans like them or not, the fact is this is the greatest deliberative body in the world that is no longer the greatest deliberative in the world, and that's because of what's going on. and i hope that i hope that we can end that and begin anew. i think everybody enjoyed the debate over the highway bill.

for once we were able to have at least four amendments on both sides, by the way. and i have to say, it was kind of a thrill to vote again on amendments. it was kind of a thrill to pass a piece of legislation the right way. whether you liked it or didn't like the legislation, it was thrill to be here. i'd like to see more of that happen so that everybody here will feel that not only they're part of the united states senate but they're helping to keep the united states senate the vibrant -- the vibrant political body had alwayitalways has been -- u. with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, i rise today to support s. 2648, the emergency supplemental appropriations act. i recently led a congressional delegation to mcallen, texas, and to lackland air force base to see firsthand what the administration was doing to handle this border crisis. it was clear to me that the hardworking men and women on the front lines of this crisis are doing the best that they can under very difficult circumstances. we should pass this important bill to provide the necessary resources to fairly address this humanitarian crisis. we should provide customs and

border protection the resources they need to pay their agents overtime when needed and to provide the necessary food, water, and medical supplies to these children. my colleagues and i saw children in thin the c.v.p. facilities as young as seven. many arrived severely malnutritioned. they are clearly desperate. they are not traveling here simply because they want to. they are fleeing mortal danger at the hands of violent drug gangs, which have rendered their countries some of the most dangerous places to live. we should be working together to make sure that these children are given proper care in our facilities and that our c.v.p. agents have the support they need. it was clear to me that these c.v.p. facilities meant to safely hold some dangerous criminals are no place for children to be held, even for just a few days. this is a view also shared by

c.v.p. officers on the ground who said this is no place for chin. -- for children. this is why i believe it is so important to provide necessary funding to the department of health and human services so that they can continue to maintain shelters, capacity at places like lackland air force base. at lakeland, i was given hope. i saw children being educated, being taught english, praying if they chose to, and learning the pledge of allegiance. i saw a place that equity inned our values a cannes. this is why i strongly oppose altering the protections of the 2008 trafficking victims protection reauthorization afnlgact.the answer is not expeg screenings and deporting these children as soon as possible at the border. all this will accomplish is to send these children back into harm's way. indeed, into the murder capitals of the world. even more quickly.

i have actually seen what these expedited screenings look like. during our trip we saw small children sitting on concrete blocks in a noisy and overwhelming c.v.p. facility. in this environment these children struggle to answer questions from union uniformed border protection officers. let me be clear, that officer was doing the best he could. but children arriving here after a dangerous journey are in no position to quickly explain their reasons for coming to the united states, much less understand the legal basis for their claim to relief under u.s. law. when children are asked to provide the explanation in the kind of harsh environment we saw in mcallen, they have little chance of making a compelling case for asylum or other protection. and this facility, children can't access legal help to make their case.

many of these children have legitimate legal claims that they have been physically abused, raped or victimized by gangs or human traffickers. we must give them a fair chance to tell their stories. this bill which i support does not repeal these protections. instead, it takes the important step of funding or immigration court to levels necessary to timely hear these children's claims. this bill also helps with legal representation and orientation services. something that the faith communities and other advocates that we met with told us were necessary. this will help to speed up the legal process while ensuring the rights of these children are protected. just as importantly, this bill funds our efforts to address the root causes of why these children are arriving in our country in the first place. it will help us stop drug trafficking from this region and will help stabilize these

economies that have been ravaged by the narcotrafficking violence. this past weekend columnists and commentator eloquently spoke on this issue. he said and i'm quoting him, "my view is we have to say to these children, welcome to america. you're going to go to school and get a job and become americans. we have 3,141 counties in this country. that would be 20 per county. the idea that we can't assimilate these 8-year-old criminals with theired they bears is -- teddy bears is preposterous. we can handle the problem is what i'm saying. i'm still quoting george will. we've handled what emma lazarus famously called the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, a lot more people than this. he did write, we are a country

that weather refugees as many of these children are, from all around the world. i urge my colleagues to support this important supplemental appropriations measure. and i yield back my time.

madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to speak in favor of

a principle that should identity us all. -- unite us all. the principle of internet tax freedom. one of the great blessings of our modern economy is the productivity, is the entire spirit -- entrepreneurial spirit is the internet has created, the ability to jump on line, to create a business, to reach the world. and one of the reasons that the internet has been such an entrepreneurial be haven is that congress has wisely decided to keep it free from taxation, not to subject the internet to taxation. well, madam president, unfortunately, we are at the precipice of that long transition changing -- tradition changing. if the senate refuses to take action, the internet will be taxed this november. for a decade and a half,

americans have been able to use the internet all across the country free of taxes, and republicans and democrats have agreed on this basic principle. you know, there's not a lot of agreement in this town on much of anything including what time of day it is. and yet on internet taxes, in 1998, president bill clinton signed the law banning internet taxes. congress has extended it three times, in 2001, 2004, and 2007. today, there is a bipartisan coalition on the record to keep the internet tax-free. the senior democratic senator from new york and the senior democratic senator from wisconsin, both publicly support keeping the internet free from taxation. conservatives in the senate such as the junior republican senator from utah, the junior republican senator from florida, and the senior republican senator from louisiana agree as well.

there are 52 cosponsors in the senate on the bill by the senior democratic senator from oregon who is here with us to keep the ban on internet taxes. this should be easy. this should be a matter of easy agreement because environmental an issue that as united parties so broadly as keeping the internet tax-free. yet, unfortunately, this session of the senate has also seen politicians who want to extend sales taxes to the internet, who want to subject small businesses, mom and pops, businesses started by people just wanting to build a business, to crushing sales taxes from 9,600 jurisdictions nationwide.

madam president, i am passionate in saying we should fight against taxing the internet. and we should not open the door to internet taxes. the average tax rate right now on telephone services and other voice services is 17%. the average tax rate on cable and video services, is 12%. madam president, if this senate doesn't act, you're going to see consumers in states like montana and south dakota and massachusetts on november 1 begin paying taxes for having basic internet service. those state laws are already in effect and will go into effect on internet services, i would note for the senators that represent montana and south

dakota and massachusetts, come november 2 -- which i might note is right before an election day -- anyone in those states should be prepared to answer questions from their citizens, why the senate stood by and let taxes be raised on their citizens just for having an internet connection. americans are struggling to pay their bills in the obama economy. life has gotten harder and harder for woman men and women in this country, life has gotten harder and harder for the most vulnerable among us, for hispanics, for african-americans, for single moms. the last thing we should be doing is playing politics and jacking up taxes on people accessing the internet. now, i would note that the united states house of representatives has already acted. on july 15, the house voice

voted h.r. 3086, the permanent internet tax freedom act. it had 228 cosponsors. my friend, senator wyden, has introduced the senate version of it, s. 1431. it has 52 cosponsors, including 18 democrats. this ought to be something where we stop playing games and say let's all come together and agree, don't tax the internet. yet, unfortunately, we're not in that situation. unfortunately, we're seeing an objection to the house-passed bill, to the bill that has the support of a majority of senators. why? the only reason is because there's hope that by holding the

internet tax freedom act hostage, it can become a vehicle to impose sales taxes on transactions over the internet. to impose sales taxes on every small business, and you know i would note one of the wonderful things, it used to be if you wanted to start a small business, if you're a single mom and wasn'ted to start a small business and you wanted to make something, you wanted to sit down and make something whether it is a computer program or sweaters for dogs, or anything else, it used to be that to create a small business took time, it took money, it took infrastructure. you had to have in in place warehouses and distributors, you had to have a mechanism to sell your products. you know the great thing about the internet, if you're a single mom and you've got an idea to start a business, you can put up a web site and with fed ex you can deliver anywhere

in the country and anyone all over the country can go and if you have an idea -- let me tell you my cousin had an idea to sell scarves. she thought she had some good design ideas. my cousin, beatriz, she worked with her best friend, put up a web site and suddenly you can sell all over the country. what would the internet sales tax do? it would say that when you start your business, if you start getting customers you've got to collect taxes in 9,600 jurisdictions all over the country. and, you know, if the school district across the country changes hits rate from 4.5% to 4.75%, you've got to know that and collect the differential tax. this doesn't make any sense. we should stand together united

in protecting the entrepreneurial haven that is the internet. we should stand united against taxing the internet. now, i would note that my friend, the senator from new hampshire, has a long and passionate record on this issue as well, and i am happy to yield to her for a question on this important topic. ms. ayotte: i thank the senator from texas --. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you. i thank the senator from texas for coming to the floor to talk about this incredibly important issue to the american people. and isn't it true that for 16 years, the internet tax freedom act has prevented politicians nationwide from using the web as a piggy bank and has helped commerce thrive by keeping it free from burdensome tax

restrictions? and isn't it true that by making this permanent the way the house bill does and the way that the bill that my colleague from oregon, his bill that has been offered that has 52 cosponsors in the united states senate does, we never have to allow the people of this country again to feel uncertainty that suddenly this great freedom we have on the internet, that they're going to be taxed when they access the internet or that somehow we're going to use the internet as a way to raise money and a way to hurt e-commerce? i would ask that of my colleague from the state of texas and ask, is this all true, that if we can pass the house bill right now, which is similar to the bill offered by my colleague from oregon, we can give the american people that certainty that we're not going to tax what they're doing on the internet? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from new hampshire and i would note

that she is exactly right. we have the ability to do something productive, something that doesn't happen in washington an awful lot. we have the ability right now to come together in a bipartisan way for the senate to demonstrate that it can function productively to address the economic challenges in this country the way the house has. the house is doing their job. the house has passed this bill. it's the senate that has refused to take it up for a vote. it is the senate that's refusing to do its job. and we have an ability not just to protect the internet from taxes but also to honor our word. how many members of this body on both sides of the aisle go to the tech community and say, we want to stand with tech? we want to stand for the entrepreneurial vibrancy of tech? and yet i would note anyone objecting to this right now is setting the stage for a massive

internet tax. how many of us make the case to young people that we're standing for the future for young people, we're standing for greater opportunity, we're standing for the chance to -- to help young people achieve the american dream? you know, young americans 18-29 years old oppose an internet sales tax by 73% to 27%. and yet if this body refuses to stand together in a bipartisan manner, we're telling young people, what we say on the campaign trail is not backed up by action on the floor. we ought to come together on what should be a noncontroversial bill, a bill that has passed three times before, a bill that was signed by president bill clinton, a bill that in this body is introduced by a senior democrat, we ought to come together in a bipartisan way to say, we stand in unison protecting internet

tax freedom. accordingly, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3086, which was received from the house. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. heitkamp: i want to first off make a couple points which, as we talk about this, i think it's clear to identify who is the taxing authority. my distinguished and very learned constitutional scholar from the state of texas knows well that the imposition doesn't come from this body. the imposition comes from states and local governments who have 10th amendment sovereign rights. they have the ability to finance their own government. they have the ability to make

those decisions. congress has the right to make decisions on their ability based on a concept that congress ultimately has the obligation to control and to deal with interstate commerce. and only in the rarest of circumstances, when interstate commerce is critically involved, has congress stepped up. and it's very rare that this body or that any previous congress has -- has actually dictated the constraints of that sovereign right of states and local governments under the 10th amendment to impose their own taxes. i can tell you, there is a glaring example. during a time in the 1970's when the railroads were struggling and different types of transportation organizations were struggling, we saw this body step up with a unified approach to improving the railroads. and guess what? the railroads got better.

and the states now know what the constraints are, established by this body, very limited on their ability to do centralized assessments on the railroads. we saw it in something called public law 86-272 regarding income tax, a very narrow exemption to those sovereign rights. and, yes, the internet tax freedom act is an exercise of this body's commerce clause responsibility to take a look at what's in the best interest of moving forward. but let's not forget what we are doing is a very interesting balancing authority, very interesting balance responsibility to improve interstate commerce. and so when my distinguished colleague suggests that this body is imposing any tax, that clearly is a misstatement of the facts today. there is no locality, there is no organization -- state organization or state body that

is required to impose any tax on the internet or required to impose any tax on sales tax. and so, yes, i believe we too need to address the internet tax moratorium which expires on november 1st. but we also need to have a discussion in this context of commerce clause responsibility to give the states the right to decide whether they are, in fact, going to collect state and local taxes and use taxes. and i would remind you, the collection responsibility is on the use tax for remote sales. congress responsibility and failure to meet that responsibility of creating an opportunity to level the playing field for main street business businesses. what do i say? i tell you if you are selling a widget in north dakota and you have bricks and mortar and you participate in the society, you

provide dollars for the schools, you provide scholarship dollars, you collect a sales tax. but if you're a remote seller taking advantage of the same marketplace and competing directly against that main street business, you no longer have that responsibility. so to suggest that this body would be doing any of that, imposing any taxes on mom and pop ignores the fact that the imposition of this tax comes from state and local governments who all too often -- my friends on the other side of the aisle say closer to the people, the more responsibility -- responsive those state governments are. i would suggest that in the -- in the great state of texas, the current governor is a republic republican. certainly has the ability to decide tax policies. the legislatures are certainly republican and they can decide whether they want to do any imposition of tax. and so with all of that in mind, madam president, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i'm going to be brief, having spoken on this already once today. and i simply want to highlight my sense of where all of this is. back in 1998, along with congressman chris cox, the republican congressman from california, one of the most market-oriented individuals i've ever seen in public service he and i came together to write the original internet tax freedom act. and the reason we did is we were concerned about discrimination which looked like it could do enormous damage to innovation and the future of the internet. for example, we saw early on that if someone bought the

newspaper in some jurisdictions online, they would pay a hefty tax. but if they bought the snail mail edition, they would pay no tax. so congressman cox and i on a bipartisan basis came together and said, we don't want to see that kind of discrimination against the future. we don't want to see that kind of discrimination against innovation and technology. so that's what the internet tax freedom bill was all about in 1998 and the subsequent reauthorizations -- and the subsequent reauthorizations were all about trying to build on that enormous success. congressman cox and i thought that the internet tax freedom bill would be a success back in 1998. it has far exceeded expectations in terms of promoting innovation and small business and many of the concerns that all three colleagues have touched on. so then to fast forward to tod today, i'm the author of the

legislation with our colleague from south dakota, senator thu thune, of the permanent internet tax freedom extension. and i will just say to colleagues, i would like nothing more -- nothing more -- than to be able to stand here today to see this enormously valuable piece of legislation made permanent now. the reality, however, is -- and we've seen it and heard about it -- there are objections on both sides at this point to seeing the bill that i wrote with senator thune, as senator cruz correctly notes, with more than half the senate as cosponsors, we have objections to seeing that bill moved today. so the best thing that can be done now for the hundreds of millions of american internet users and the economy for which the internet is a lifeline, is to extend the current ban until

it's possible to lock in a path to pass a permanent extension. this isn't a political issue. that point has been made. there are a number of democrats and republicans who join myself and senator thune in supporting the permanent moratorium. there are a number of republicans and democrats opposing the extension of that moratorium. and reluctantly -- and we'll have that debate -- they seem to think that it's okay to impose discriminatory taxes on the internet. so it seems to me that no one who supports keeping the moratorium in place, ought to object to a short-term extension now. doing so only makes it more likely that internet access and services would be subject to discriminatory taxation.

so let me now in the interest of time, madam president, simply ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. 2735, a two-month extension of the internet tax freedom act to december 31, 2014, the text of which is at the desk, that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. ayotte: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. reserving the right to object. first of all, let me just say to my colleague from oregon, i share what you have described and the work that did you in bringing forth the internet tax freedom act, the success we have seen from keeping the internet free from discriminatory taxes has been astounding. so i commend you for that. i'm a cosponsor of and a proud

cosponsor of your permanent act that you have with the senator from south dakota. and i appreciate that you recognize how important it is that we keep this freedom for our internet that has been so productive for the american people and, frankly, giving people from all walks of life access to this great tool on the internet. so i thank -- i thank my colleague from oregon for that. unfortunately, i object -- i want to note today that i'm reserving my right to object because to extend this only to december 31 is just to invite -- invite uncertainty for the american people. i think the american people have had enough of these dramatic new year's eve moments in this body where they're wondering, are we going to act on important things, like will we ensure that the internet remains free from

discriminatory taxes. and i know that my colleague from oregon shares the same goals. but to put this to december 31, the lame duck of this body, at the moment where we can all be sitting here on new year's eve and the american people again can be looking at us saying, why do you all leave this to the very last minute on something that has 52 cosponsors, that's the right thing to do for the american people? and we shall give them the certainty now by extending this law permanently. i -- i also note that if this is going to be extended into the lame duck session, i'm very worried about the shenanigans that are going to happen, and the shenanigans are on an issue that the senator from oregon and i are quite passionate about, and that is the so-called marketplace fairness act that my colleague just referenced from north dakota. which is -- i like to call it instead of the marketplace fairness act, the internet sales tax collection act.

my colleague from north dakota mentioned that this is about state and locals collecting taxes. i respect that state and localities should be able to collect taxes, but for states like oregon and new hampshire that don't have a sales tax, why should our businesses -- or why should any internet business in this country take on the responsibility which has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local governments to collect taxes because under the so-called market fairness act, what would happen is internet businesses across this country, including in states like oregon and new hampshire, would become the sales tax collectors for almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this country, which is a bureaucratic nightmare for so many thriving internet businesses. it's an anathema to estates like oregon and new hampshire who have chosen not to have a sales

tax. most importantly, to subject our great online businesses to the potential that they could be subject to an audit in almost 10,000 taxing jurisdictions to me is the opposite of what i know my colleague from oregon is trying to accomplish with all the work that he has done in -- in this body, not only on the wyden-thune internet tax freedom forever act, which i fully support, but all the other work that he has done to make sure that the internet remains free and prosperous in this country for the benefit of all the american people. so i think -- i object to what my colleague from oregon has offered. i think a short-term fix is no fix at all. in fact, it just leaves the american people again uncertain that we will protect their rights against discriminatory taxes that can be imposed on them over the internet and that also invites shenanigans with the -- -- the so-called

marketplace fairness act that can get attached. and i know some of my colleagues have talked about that potential of attaching this unfair act which i would like to call the internet sales tax collection act which makes our online businesses across this country the sales tax collectors for almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this nation. and so that -- for those reasons, i object. i would like to see what my colleague from oregon has put forth, which is excellent legislation, and i thank him for that, which is permanent tax freedom from the internet. and with that, madam president, i believe that the senator from texas would also like to be heard on this issue. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i would like to briefly explain for people watching the back and forth that just occurred what's going on here, because it's easy

to not understand everything that's happening, and there are really three things that are going on here. number one, what we're unfortunately seeing is the senate holding one bill hostage in order to try to force through another unpopular bill. there are two bills concerning the internet. the first is the internet tax freedom act. that has been in place for over a decade. it's had bipartisan support. it has been shoind by the senator from oregon who has been an outspoken and passionate advocate, of making sure that when you and i go and sign up for the internet we don't face taxes for getting internet service, and it's worked very, very well. that law has always been an area of bipartisan agreement, but there is a second law that has been proposed in this body but not passed. the second law is the internet sales tax, what its proponents call the marketplace fairness

act. the internet sales tax is not focused on taxing someone just for signing up to the internet. rather, the people being punished by the internet sales tax are all the small businesses that are trying to sell their wares online. and there are a number of members of this body, a number of senators who very much want to impose taxes on those small businesses in 9,600 jurisdictions nationwide. what is happening here right now is even though no one has serious objections to the internet tax freedom act, we are unfortunately seeing our colleagues from the democratic side of the aisle hold that bill hostage in an effort to try to force through the internet sales tax. and i would note that the reason my friend from new hampshire had no choice but to object to the two-month proposal is the two-month time period was not

picked out of a hat. two months means that the internet sales -- the internet tax freedom act would expire during a lame-duck session. and why is that? because a lame-duck session, when you get a bunch of members who have been defeated, who aren't going to face voters ever again, a lame-duck session is the session most likely to raise taxes. and so why is it that there is an effort to extend this just two months? so when the internet tax freedom act expires in the lame duck, that members of this body have just lost their election who are immune from democratic accountability will all come together and say okay, now let's pass the internet sales tax. we shouldn't be holding the internet hostage to the rapacious desire of tax collectors. a second point i want to make about what's going on here. this is about discriminatory

taxes, not about federalism. my friend, the senator from north dakota, was a learned attorney general who talked about the tenth amendment in federalism, and i welcome seeing friends of mine on the democratic side of the aisle embrace the tenth amendment. i look forward and hope aspirationally that friends on the democratic side of the aisle will embrace the tenth amendment on other issues. i would note, however, that the constitutional history we were told was a little bit off, because if you look at the history of our country, originally we had the articles of confederation. the articles of confederation allowed states to enact discriminatory taxes against each other, and it led to chaos. it didn't work. and one of the reasons our constitution was adopted was to prevent discriminatory taxes, one state picking on another state. and so congress is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. it is precisely to prevent a

little mom and pop selling online from being forced by 9,600 jurisdictions nationwide to collect all of those taxes if you are living and working in the state of texas, you shouldn't have to collect taxes for new york or california. for politicians you don't get to vote for. for politicians you don't get any input on, you shouldn't be forced to collect their taxes. indeed, the approach of the members of this body who want to pass the internet sales tax recall president reagan's famous admonition, that the approach of government is if it moves, tax it. if it keeps moving, regulate it. and if it stops moving, subsidize it. madam president, why don't we stop it at the outset? the internet is moving. it is generating entrepreneurial steam throughout this country. we haven't been taxing it. let's not start now. and the third and final point i'll make about what this

exchange is about is more than anything, this exchange is about crony capitalism. i would note that the presiding officer today has been quite passionate, discussing the corruption in washington that favors big business. what we just saw on this senate floor illustrates that as powerfully as anything that has happened this year, because what is the internet sales tax all about? it is about a coalition of big businesses coming together, both big bricks and mortar retailers and big online retailers coming to their elected officials saying, you know what, we don't like competition. these little guys, these little upstarts, these single moms that start businesses and compete with us, we don't like that. so let's go to our friends in washington, our friends, mind you, who we hold campaign fundraisers for but we

contribute to their campaigns, and let's get the united states congress to come together and hammer every small online business we can. that's what we're seeing. this is crony capitalism. this is a law designed to benefit big companies and hurt small start-ups. madam president, the beauty of our country is that anybody can come to this country with nothing, but with a hope and a dream and a vision and achieve anything, and it is because the entrepreneurial vibecy of this country gives the little guy a chance. and yet i'm sorry to say washington more and more behaves like it's for sale to the highest bidder. you know, right now today, the top 1% in our country earn a higher share of our income than

any year since 1928. we ought to come together in a bipartisan way to say stop being the handmaidens of big business. stop using government to make it harder for the little guy, for young people, for single moms, for hispanic and african-american entrepreneurs, stop making it harder for them to achieve the american dream. stop pulling up the ladder so that the big companies say we got ours, nobody else gets theirs. when big business comes to washington and says we want government's help stifling small business, both parties should stand together and say sorry, that is not what the u.s. congress is for. we work for the american people. i'm sorry to say right now what we just saw was a powerful demonstration that this united states senate right now is more interested in preserving crony

capitalism than it is in protecting mom and pops, in protecting opportunity, in protecting internet tax freedom. but you know the great thing about our system, at the end of the day, the american people don't work for the 100 members of this body. it's the other way around. all 100 of us work for the american people. and i'll tell you the american people are getting fed up. they are getting fed world cup members of both parties who spend more time getting into the corruption of washington and entrenching power than they do removing barriers to people achieving the american dream, and i am hopeful and confident that the voters are waking up, are standing up and will hold every one of us accountable, democrats and republicans, every one of us will be held

accountable. have you fought to make it easier to achieve the american dream or have you simply preserved the corrupt crony capitalism of washington? i hope that we can together aspire to our better angels. i hope we can come together and keep and preserve in a bipartisan manner internet tax freedom. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, just to briefly respond to the senator from -- mr. cornyn: if the senator would yield for a unanimous consent request? i would ask that following the remarks of the senator from oregon, that the senator from kansas be recognized and that i be then recognized following that. that nor sanders from vermont would be following me. i would ask unanimous consent for that. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: madam president, reserving the right to object, just so i can be clear. so senator cornyn would speak next and then senator sanders would speak after you?

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, the unanimous consent would be the senator from oregon, the senator from kansas, the senator from texas and the senator from vermont. mr. wyden: very good. i withdraw my reservation. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, just very briefly to describe where i think the internet tax debate is, is that we have republicans and democrats objecting to what i happen to think is in the country's national interest, and that is a permanent ban on internet past discrimination. so we have republicans and democrats objecting to that. now, my colleague from texas comes forward and says okay, let's not do a two-month extension because you don't want

to consider this in the lame-duck session. but colleagues, if you don't do the two-month extension, the internet tax freedom act will have expired and you're still in the lame-duck session. and by the time you get to the lame duck, millions of americans will be vulnerable to discriminatory internet taxes. so i'm just going to close this discussion by saying that in my view, neither of the options is exactly ideal, because i think i made it very clear after 16 years that i would like to make permanent the ban against discriminatory taxes. but neither situation is ideal from my standpoint because republicans and democrats both

object to doing that today. but what we know is that one option that we have in front of us today is worse than the other. and the really bad option is to not do a short-term extension and leave millions of americans vulnerable to discriminatory taxes. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran:i'd like to speak on the topics of veterans and veterans affairs first of all, i'd like to take a moment to honor a

kansas veteran, a veteran who dedicated much of his life to serving our country, whether that was on active duty in the navy or advocating on behalf of other veterans. mr. moran: mr. herb schwarzkoff. he served in the navy in viet and after returning he joined the veterans of foreign wars, the v.f.w., which he has been a member of now for 45 years. he's considered a life member of the v.f.w. last year the hutchison news asked herb about his life and dedication to serving his fellow veteran. his response was i'll talk about the "v" but i'm not going to talk about me. the "v" is herb's beloved v.f.w. post and he's a humble man who accomplished much and his priorities in life have been taking care of his country and taking care of the veterans who served his country. the countless contributions of

herb shwartzkoff has earned him the highest honor bestowed by the v.f.w. all-american status. herb is now the all-american commander of post 7972 in ransom, kansas. herb's v.f.w. post serves as a meeting place at a community service hub for his neighbors from the thanksgiving feasts to the residents of his hometown. it is a place raising funds for local cancer victims helping fund annual honor flights to see the world war ii memorial. the members of post 7927 complete more than 250 service projects and volunteer more than 4,000 hours a year. his leadership at the v.f.w. post has deservedly won the national community service post of the year five times, including three years in a row -- 2009, 2007 and 2011. the ram son v.f.w. test is the

result of true selflessness. as herb put it, if something comes up and somebody needs help, we just try to rise to the occasion. it seems only fitting that he has earned this prestigious award as all-american post commander. and i want to pay tribute to him and his post, to his service, to our country and his service to other veterans and thank him for that care and concern for other veterans. so i say that, thank you for yourselfless dedication. we're fortunate to have you as a citizen of our state and a citizen of our nation. i also want to speak about legislation today that has been reduced by me and senator blumenthal. it is an issue that senator blumenthal brought to my attention and today we have introduced the toxic exposure research act of 2014. we're fortunate to live in a nation where men and women volunteer their services to

sacrifice and support us to have the strongest, freest greatest nation in the world. when service members raise their right hand and take the oath of enlistment or commissioning they commit their lives to support the constitution of the united states and to protect the freedoms we hold dearly. standing by their side through combat tours and multiple duty stations around the world is their family, and we should and we must acknowledge that their family members are being called to sacrifice for the nation as well. the toxic exposure research act is about addressing the wounds of war that might impact a service member's family, wounds that may not be evident for decades. later when it's passed on to the next person of their family in the next generation. this legislation would provide for the research on health conditions of descendants of veterans who are exposed to toxins during their service to our nation, such as agent orange in vietnam, gufg war neuro--

gulf war neurotoxins or other chemicals from recent conflicts overseas. i'm not a veteran, but my life has been shaped by the fact that the vietnam war took place during my high school years. many of the conversations i had in high school were spent talking to those who were a few years older than me or who were volunteering or being draft and those who returned home to my hometown after their service in vietnam. during vietnam, many of our veterans were exposed to agent orange and years later many veterans and their families are still struggling with the side effects of that exposure. agent orange specifically has been shown to cause birth defects in children of military members who came in contact with the toxin during the vietnam war. and there are other poisons from war since vietnam that have led to life-altering health problems and painful tragedies among veterans and their families. a story of herb worthington and his daughter karen.

mr. worthington was drafted to serve in vietnam and was exposed to agent orange. years after his service came to an end he suffered from many conditions as a proven result of his exposure to agent orange. his daughter has battled m.s. for more than 19 years and has been treated for other conditions like melanoma, an extremely painful nerve condition. her life has been handicapped by health problems and various illnesses which must be studied in connection with her exposure to her father and what he experienced with agent orange. stories like mr. worthington and his daughter karen have been shared all across the country in town hall meetings. i heard them in stories at home in kansas and they have been collected by the vietnam veterans of america. this is an issue that is important to all veterans. it's important to all americans that we live up to our commitment to those who serve, and it's time we take necessary steps to help and protect their families now and for generations to come.

many people we will never know may be affected by the consequences of their father, mother, grandfather or grandmother's service to their country. clear evidence of unsettling conditions and those personal stories warrant the need to collect data to, research and study the consequences of these toxins. i'd invite my colleagues to learn more about these conditions and the impact they're having on family members of veterans by checking out a social media page, faces of agent orange through the vietnam veterans association, the v.v.a. the fact is many of the symptoms from toxic exposure are misdiagnosed in descendants of veterans because of lack of understanding and lack of scientific proof. i'd ask my colleagues to join us in giving the authority to the secretary, the new secretary that we confirmed earlier this week, a tool that he needs so that he can designate a v.a. medical center as a national center for research on the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions of descendants

of individuals or soldiers exposed to toxic substances during their service to our country, during their time as a military member. this legislation would establish an advisory board of scientists and experts to advise the national center and the v.a. secretary with determining the health conditions studied and those that are the result of toxic exposure. the department of defense has a troll play here in -- has a role to play in this research sharing members who were exposed to enhance the studies conducted by the department of veterans affairs. it is our hope the medical research would lead to appropriate supports and benefits, cures and treatments for family members. military families support our nation in their love and commitment to those who served in the armed forces, and they should not inherit the painful residual wounds of war that put their lives at risk long after the military operation is over.

toxic exposure research is a necessary step toward making certain our military men and women and their descendants will be properly cared for. it's also a step toward making certain that those toxins are not used in a way that causes this to be repeated once again in any future war. we must keep our promises to our veterans and to their families who have made the greatest sacrifice for the sake of our country, its security, our freedom and our country's free tour. madam president, i yield the floor. -- mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, later on today i expect that we will be voting on the emergency supplemental appropriation that the president has requested to deal with the humanitarian crisis on the texas border. over the past few weeks i've spoken about this and made several trips down to the valley. i'll be leaving tonight along

with colleagues with a bipartisan congressional delegation going down again to the valley and then to lackland air force base where about 1,200 children are currently being housed by the department of health and human services pending their placement with their relatives in the country. but as part of this discussion we've been having and the search for solutions to this unexpected flood of humanity in the form of unaccompanied children coming across the southwestern border, many of us are trying to figure out exactly what the cause of this flood is. in fact, i think it's probably more than one cause. i think perhaps it's the president's statements that he's going to defer action or refuse to enforce our current immigration laws against certain class of immigrants. that's known as the president's deferred action order, executive order of 2012. but there's also another cause,

i think, that has been recognized on a bipartisan basis, and this is a 2008 human trafficking law that passed by essentially unanimously in 2008 because we were focused on one problem -- that is human trafficking -- but the unexpected consequences, or unintended consequences of that created a business model that's being exploited by the transnational criminal organizations or cartels as they traffic in human beings coming from central america through mexico up to the texas border. and so, together with my colleague in the house, henry cuellar, a democrat, we have introduced a bipartisan, bicameral reform, something we call the humane act. and it's been cosponsored by people who have supported the so-called gang of eight bill in the senate and people who oppose the gang the eight bill. i raise that point to note that

this isn't about comprehensive immigration reform. we have a lot of work to be done. but this is actually intended to solve this immediate problem right in front of our eyes and to stop this hemorrhaging on our southwestern border. my hope is once we address that problem, we can come together in a bipartisan way and address the larger defects in our immigration system of which there are many. this is simply put, an attempt to tackle a national emergency. and let me just briefly recapitulate what i'm talking about. since october of last year, 57,000 unaccompanied children have been detained on the southwestern border. under current law, this 2008 law i mentioned, these children are processed by the border patrol and then they are placed with the department of health and

human services, as it turns out on an average of 35 days and then placed with a family member in the united states or some, if not a family member, some sponsor. part of the problem is that they are given a notice to appear at a future court hearing, and very few of them appear. and thus, they are successful in making their way from honduras, el salvador or guatamala up through mexico into the united states and end up successfully emigrating to the united states illegally, outside of our broken immigration system. what we need to do in order to fix that gap in the law, that loophole which was unintended by those of us who voted to pass the 2008 law, is to require that these children be held in protective custody and given a speedy hearing in front of an immigration judge for those who want to make a claim for asylum

or some other relief. but the truth srk the vast majority of these children, like the adults, will not have a claim to stay under existing law, and our bill doesn't change that existing law. but for those who do, they'd have a speedy opportunity to appear in front of a judge and knack claim. but for those who do not have a valid claim, they will simply be returned to their home country, to their family. this morning i was invited along with members of the house and the senate to visit with the president about national security matters, and he talked about the ukraine, talked about syria, talked about gaza, and all of the hot spots around the world. and i used the opportunity to ask the president what he proposed that we do when this bill goes down this afternoon, this emergency supplemental. and the reason this bill will fail is