On the recordApril 25, 2013
I understand that, but I think this amendment has no technical problem because it does not raise new revenues. It is simply a direction for performance of the Federal Government, which is the marketplace fairness. We are directing what will happen to the States and the involvement of the Federal Government in it. So there may very well be a blue-slip problem with some of the others, but I don't think there is with this one. The point is here we sit. I just gave a speech saying it is $182 out of a $81,000 budget we say we can't cut. That is the equivalent family situation I just lined up here, and here is a way to get $3.2 billion that is owed and due back into the Federal coffers and we are not going to allow it. So we could allow the amendment and then table it. The fact is we don't want to do that either. In talking to my House colleagues, it is going to be a while, if ever, if this bill actually sees the light of day. So we ought to be voting on the things that will actually make a difference. I don't disagree it is unfair on the Marketplace Fairness Act. I think the exclusion level is way too low for any business to be able to afford to comply with it, but that is another story. The very fact is we are not doing what we could do to collect the revenue we are due now. This is an example of just saying: Start enforcing the law. Start using the tools at hand at the Treasury and the different agencies. Yet we are not going to get to vote on that. We ought to vote.…





