“The reason it passed, and it passed with significant margins in the Senate, is because you’ve got a lot of very powerful lobbyist in Washington, D.C. who are supporting this bill. The giant corporations … are united behind this bill because it helps all of the giant companies,” Cruz said.

“The people who get hurt by this bill are the little guy,” Cruz said. “Small online retailers who get hammered by this bill. Who face massive new taxes. Who face compliance costs. If you’re a small online retailor you’re suddenly subject to the jurisdiction of over 9,600 taxing jurisdictions all over the country… and the little guys, they don’t have powerful lobbyists here in Washington.”

Cruz’s comments came during a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol.

The speakers at the event, which was organized by Rep. Steve Daines (R., Mont.), refuted recent statements that the passage of the bill may result in lower income taxes.

“One of the only things really known to stimulate the economy is to leave more things in the economy,” Paul said. “Proponents of this bill say, oh it will raise $23 billion in taxes. … I think there are all types of constitutional questions with regards to this tax, but the bottom line is economically we want more money left in the economy so I can’t be for a 23 billion dollar tax increase.”

Critics of the bill are adamant that this is a large tax increase that discriminates against small businesses, and they are particularly concerned with the notion that taxes will be implemented across state lines.

Daines said, “If you are a small business owner and you’re now forced to comply with 9,000 different tax codes …you’re not going to be investing in your business, hiring new employees, or growing your product base.”

The borderless tax, Daines continued, poses a “threat … for principles that are the foundation of our nation’s tax policy. States must not be allowed to extend their taxation and regulatory authority beyond their borders.”

Norquist reiterated that this bill would be a tax on individuals who cannot vote against the officials who are taxing them.

“In the United States, we are not in favor of allowing city governments, state governments, or national governments to tax other people who cannot vote against them,” he said.

In a letter to Congress, Gov. Scott Walker (R., Wis.) wrote, “I want to make clear, should federal Marketplace legislation become law, my intention would be for any resulting additional revenue be used to provide individual income tax relief for Wisconsin’s taxpayers.”

When asked whether the bill could be used as a tool to lower taxes, Norquist told the Washington Free Beacon, “It could be,” but he did not expect that to occur in “most states.”

“Even if it was revenue neutral, you’re still taxing across state lines,” Norquist said. “You’re subjecting people in a different state to your tax burden and you can abuse them with audits.”

Supporters of the bill say that their support does not come from a desire to implement a new tax, but rather, as Politico reported, “to correct a discrepancy in the law that has deprived states of more than $20 billion in revenue each year.”

Proponents argue that some states already require individuals who shop online to “remit fees on their Web purchases … but many buyers aren’t aware of the rules or choose not to abide by them.”

Norquist sees the bill as a poor use of time.

“Politicians who have time to lust after, theoretically $23 billion, in 50 states, where it’s a trillion dollars in state and local taxes, trillion and a half,” he said. “Why not spend that same time trying to cut the budget? Why not spend that same time cutting spending? This is what politicians do instead of governing.”

“Instead of reducing spending, instead of saving money, instead of doing things better, they just try to come up with new ways to raise taxes. This is a distraction from governing competently.”

The House Judiciary Committee is reviewing the bill. Currently, it has 66 cosponsors.

“During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of S. 744, common-sense amendments offering real solutions were rejected,” wrote the senators. “The bill’s proponents repeatedly referenced an alterable ‘deal’ that had been struck beforehand. As a result, the core provisions of the bill remain the same.”

The senators wrote that the current bill would “leave our borders unsecure and our immigration system deeply dysfunctional” and added that “the bill’s already serious flaws were exacerbated by the adoption of several amendments that significantly weaken current law, hamstring law enforcement, and further complicate our legal immigration system.”

The letter notes numerous amendments that were rejected by the committee, including an amendment sponsored by Grassley to make members of criminal gangs inadmissible for legalization, an amendment sponsored by Lee that would require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes before receiving citizenship, an amendment sponsored by Cruz that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for welfare benefits, and an amendment sponsored by Sessions requiring a social security number for those attempting to claim a child tax credit.

The senators also objected to multiple amendments that were adopted by the committee, including one that would restrict immigration enforcement actions at schools and hospitals and another that would give immigration judges more flexibility in blocking deportations.

“Americans expect their government to end the lawlessness, not surrender to it,” wrote the senators. “They deserve immigration reform with actual border security, enforcement of the laws on the books, and a legal immigration system that works. We must welcome and celebrate legal immigrants. But S. 744 fails to deliver anything more than the same empty promises Washington has been making for 30 years.”

Conservative activist leaders have been divided on the legislation, which was crafted by a bipartisan group of eight senators. Two coalitions of conservative leaders issued dueling letters on the bill last month.

Two of the three unions that represent government immigration enforcement officials have come out against the legislation.

The Gang of Eight bill is expected to go before the full senate for debate at the beginning of next week.

Cruz said attacks on his ethnicity indicates Ambassador Richardson does not want to debate the merits of immigration policy and as such the Texas senator will not be drawn into a “mud slinging battle”:

NEIL CAVUTO: If you don’t mind my diverting from online to commented that even some of your critics say were out of line on the part of our former Ambassador Bill Richardson, saying that you were not really Hispanic. That given your position and how we handle illegal immigration and the like. Despite your name, despite your background, despite all of that you’re not Hispanic, what do you think of that?

TED CRUZ: Well, I don’t know Governor Richardson. He and I have not met. He is certainly entitled to his positions. And his opinions. In my view, if people are insulting you, if they are attacking your ethnicity, that tends to indicate they don’t want to engage in the substantive merits of the argument and I certainly have no interest in getting into any sort of mud slinging battle on that front. What we need to talk about this substance of the argument and in particular we need to be focusing on economic growth that enables more and more people to climb the economic ladder and reach the American dream. You know, Neil, 55 years ago my dad came from Cuba at age 18. He couldn’t speak english. He had $100 sewn into his underwear, and that penniless immigrant washed dishes for 50 cents an hour, paid his way through school and was able start a small business and work towards the American dream. And I think what the Hispanic community wants and all Americans want is an economy and an environment where small businesses can prosper and where more and more people where anybody can start with nothing achieve anything. That’s my focus, is expanding opportunity, not responding in kind to of whatever insults those on the other side may decide to hurl.

Earlier in the day, Ambassador Richardson attempted to make the case that his remarks were misinterpreted:

SHEPARD SMITH: Over the weekend, you said that the freshman senator out of Texas, Ted Cruz, shouldn’t be able to call himself Hispanic. What was that?

BILL RICHARDSON: No, that was a misunderstanding. I said that he shouldn’t be defined as a Hispanic. I’m a Hispanic. I don’t define myself just as a Hispanic, so that was misinterpreted.

Richardson’s defense is disputable given his fairly direct allegations on ABC’s This Week (2:19 mark):

ABC: Do you think he represents most Hispanics with his politics?

RICHARDSON: No, he’s anti-immigration. Almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform. I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic. He’s a politician from Texas, a conservative state, and I respect Texas’ choice.

SHEPARD SMITH: Over the weekend, you said that the freshman senator out of Texas, Ted Cruz, shouldn’t be able to call himself Hispanic. What was that?

RICHARDSON: No, that was a misunderstanding. I said that he shouldn’t be defined as a Hispanic. I’m a Hispanic. I don’t define myself just as a Hispanic, so that was misinterpreted.

Richardson made the remark in an online interview with ABC News Sunday (at the 2:19 mark):

ABC: ‘What does he think of Ted Cruz?’

RICHARDSON: I’m not a fan. I know he’s sort of the Republican latest flavor. He’s articulate, he seems to be charismatic. But I don’t like his politics. I think he introduces a measure of incivility in the political process; insulting people is not the way to go. [...]

ABC: Do you think he represents most Hispanics with his politics?

RICHARDSON: No, he’s anti-immigration. Almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform. I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic. He’s a politician from Texas, a conservative state, and I respect Texas’ choice.

SEN. DURBIN: “I do want to note for the record, my disappointment that the administration declined to provide a witness to testify at today’s hearings.”

SEN. CRUZ: “I’d like to echo the concern that the chairman raised and the disappointment that the Obama administration declined to send a witness particularly after this hearing was delayed for one week in order to accommodate the administration’s schedule.”

An article in the Huffington Post points out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the President’s pledge to be more transparant:

“The administration’s refusal to participate comes just a few months after President Barack Obama pledged greater transparency on his targeted killing program during his 2013 State of the Union address”

“‘We must enlist our values in the fight,’ Obama said. ‘In the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.’”

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.) became the first Democrat to publicly come out against the Manchin-Toomey background check bill.

“I commend Sens. Manchin and Toomey for working so hard to bring a serious bill to the floor,” Heitkamp said in a statement. “However, in its current form I do not see a path for my support. I’ve thought long and hard about this, I’ve taken the tough meetings, and I’ve heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota; and at the end of the day my duty is to listen to and represent the people of North Dakota.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), one of several on-the-fence Republicans whose vote was needed to pass the bill, also announced Wednesday morning she was opposed to the background check amendment.

“I believe that restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will not prevent a deranged individual or criminal from obtaining and misusing firearms to commit violence,” Ayotte said in a statement. “While steps must be taken to improve the existing background check system, I will not support the Manchin-Toomey legislation, which I believe would place unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and allow for potential overreach by the federal government into private gun sales.”

Ayotte also announced she was supporting a replacement amendment drafted by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R., Texas), which the Washington Free Beacon first detailed Tuesday.

In addition to several Republicans, the bill’s passage requires the votes of Democratic senators from red states who face reelection in 2014. Sen. Kay Hagan (D., N.C.) announced she would vote yes on Manchin-Toomey on Monday. However, other Democrats in a similar situation—including Mark Pryor (D., Ark.), Mark  Begich (D., Alaska), and Mary Landrieu (D., La.)—have all thus far remained silent.

A GOP Senate aide told the Free Beacon Hagan’s decision to jump out early in support of Manchin-Toomey was “a testament to her skills” as a politician.

The background check amendment was a bipartisan deal hammered out by Sens. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D., W.V.).

While political commentators and journalists have declared the Manchin-Toomey bill dead, the White House has refused to officially throw in the towel.

“The path to 60 is difficult but it is not unachievable,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a briefing today.

The defeat of the bill would be a blow to President Barack Obama, who made gun control a central part of his second-term agenda following the shootings in Newtown, Conn.

Democrats initially laid out a bold plan to expand background checks, ban high-capacity magazines, and reinstitute a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15 semiautomatic rifles used in several mass shootings.

An assault weapons ban authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) will be voted on as an amendment Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who previously opposed assault weapons ban, announced Wednesday morning that he will support Feinstein’s bill.

The Senate will also vote on a ban on high-capacity magazines. However, few senators appear to have much appetite for the bills, especially in the face of stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun owners across the country.

Anti-gun trafficking legislation authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) is also on Wednesday’s schedule.

Republicans are moving forward with a slate of their own amendments as well. Cruz and Grassley announced an amendment to replace the Toomey-Manchin bill Wednesday morning that would strengthen the FBI’s criminal background check system and increase federal prosecutions of gun violence.

The NRA announced Wednesday morning it would support the Cruz-Grassley bill, as will the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) has also introduced a concealed carry reciprocity amendment, which would allow individuals with conceal carry privileges in their own state to conceal carry across state lines into other states that also permit it.

Finally, Sens. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) and Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) coauthored a bill that would authorize mental health programs and support for teenagers.