[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5072-S5077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1450. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for
the establishment of a commercial truck safety program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Commercial Truck
Safety Act of 2011 to address one of my top priorities, and one of my
constituents' greatest concerns in recent years, keeping trucks on the
Interstate Highway System whenever and wherever possible.
Improving truck safety has been one of my key concerns for more than
a decade. What seemed like a simple task so many years ago has become a
long battle, fighting for common sense changes that would allow all
trucks in Maine to use the Interstate system.
In 2009, Senator Collins and I, and our colleagues from Vermont, were
able to secure a one-year pilot program that allowed 100,000-pound
trucks on Interstates in Maine. The program reinforced the need for a
permanent change to the outdated and inconsistent regulations that
govern the weight of trucks on our Interstate highways.
During the 2009-2010 pilot program, there were 14 fewer crashes, a 10
percent improvement, involving six-axle vehicles, even with increased
traffic volume on Maine's Interstate system. In fact, there were no
fatal crashes on the Interstate during the pilot program, and 5 fewer
injuries on secondary roads.
Maine's Department of Transportation collects fatal accident data
regarding large trucks, and more than 96 percent are on secondary
roads, not the Interstate, including the portion of 1-95 that has a
permanent exemption. Crash rates for Maine trucks on secondary roads
are 7 to 10 times higher than on Interstate highways.
Trucks belong on the highway, but Interstate highway weight limits
are inconsistent across state lines, and shippers are forced to use
secondary roads to move goods through states still restricted by weight
limits established decades ago. In the 122 miles between Hampden and
Houlton, Maine, a common route for shippers, these legal 100,000-pound
trucks are forced to pass by 9 schools, 270 intersections, and more
than 3,000 driveways.
The Commercial Truck Safety Act will allow states to petition the
Secretary of Transportation for a waiver from current Interstate weight
limits. The Secretary would have the authority to authorize a 3-year
pilot program, during which time state engineers, highway users, and
safety advocates would weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and
report to the Secretary who could then set reasonable, permanent weight
limits.
The Secretary would authorize a 3-year pilot program within a state,
and require the creation of a safety committee, composed of engineers,
safety advocates, and highway users. This team would report to the
Secretary on whether the pilot program should be made permanent,
eliminating the need
[[Page S5073]]
for individual States to come to Congress for special exemptions.
Under my plan, only six-axle vehicles would be eligible to carry
loads over 80,000 pounds. A 2000 Federal Highway Administration study
noted that these trucks cause LESS fatigue on both rigid and flexible
pavements. There is no question that allowing these vehicles on the
Interstate will have safety, environmental, and efficiency benefits.
A total of 27 States already have some type of permanent exemption,
and 47 states allow trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds on some roads
within their State. To offer a clear picture of this, if you are
driving a 100,000-pound truck from Gary, Indiana, just outside of
Chicago, to Portland, Maine, you would be forced to unload the
additional weight to continue on the Interstate in Maine, or travel
through the state on local roads, needlessly raising the risk of an
accident on a local road or street. Conversely, and inexplicably, you
can drive a truck weighing 90,000 pounds all the way from Kansas City,
MO to Seattle, WA, exclusively on the Interstate system.
If a State's chief highway engineer can certify the safety of a
route, and the condition of a road, a State should have the flexibility
to change its weight limit on Interstate highways.
Pulp and paper produced in Bucksport and Lincoln, Maine, are vital to
the economic health of my State, but with the return to previous weight
limits, Maine is at a significant disadvantage due to the higher cost
of transportation caused by this fundamental inequity. Some of my
constituents noted that the pilot program increased efficiency so
appreciably, it was as if the factory had been moved 200 miles closer
to the customer. While at first glance this may seem insignificant, we
must not forget that diesel prices are well above $4.00 per gallon, and
tractor trailers operate at approximately 6 miles per gallon. Not only
will this bill save fuel and costs for shippers, it will reduce costs
for states. A 2004 study commissioned by the Maine Department of
Transportation indicates that a permanent change would reduce the
state's pavement costs by more than $1 million per year. It would also
cut bridge rehabilitation costs by more than $300,000 per year.
It is critical that we maximize our current highway capacity, and
ensure that freight movement is efficient and timely. The Commercial
Truck Safety Act will provide states with the flexibility they need to
improve freight mobility and increase safety on our highways. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill, and allow States to update truck
weight limits that no longer enhance safety or boost our economy.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, and Mr.
Reed):
S. 1452. A bill to promote simplification and fairness in the
administration and collection of sales and use taxes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, ``Level the Playing Field.''
When I ask small business owners what they would like the Federal
Government to do to help them thrive, the answer I most frequently hear
is, ``level the playing field.''
It may be a cliche, but there's truth to it. Most small
businesspeople don't want a government handout. They don't want special
treatment. They just want to be able to compete fairly against other
businesses.
That is why I am introducing the Main Street Fairness Act.
If you are a small business owner in Peoria or Springfield or Alton,
you compete against neighboring businesses down the street and,
increasingly, with sellers on the internet. The businesses down the
street have to collect the same State sales taxes that you do. But,
many internet sellers don't.
That means internet sellers have a built-in price advantage. That
isn't fair, and it's not a level playing field.
The Main Street Fairness Act would address that. The bill would give
Congressional endorsement to the Streamline Sales and Use Tax
Agreement, which 45 States and the District of Columbia created years
ago to help make it feasible for businesses selling online to collect
State and local sales taxes already owed.
Why is this Agreement necessary? The Supreme Court ruled in the early
'90s that the maze of current sales tax rules and rates was too complex
to expect online retailers to comply. The States worked together to
address that problem.
The Main Street Fairness Act says that any State that wants to do so
can require online retailers to collect the same sales taxes that Main
Street businesses collect, provided that small online retailers are
exempt, online retailers are compensated for any startup administrative
costs associated with collecting sales taxes, and all retailers are
treated equally regarding sales tax collection.
Let me be as clear as I can on one point: this bill is NOT a tax
increase.
It doesn't amend the Internal Revenue Code in any way. It simply
provides states the option to require all retailers to collect the
sales taxes that are already owed.
The Main Street Fairness Act provides two other big benefits.
First, consumers will no longer be asked to itemize the sales taxes
they owe from their online purchases on their year-end tax forms. Few
consumers comply with the law today--most don't know they should--but
the Main Street Fairness Act would eliminate the need to do so.
Second, State and local governments would collect taxes that are
already owed.
It is no secret that many States and cities, including the State of
Illinois and local governments across my State, are struggling to
balance their budgets.
The State of Illinois estimates that we lose as much as $153 million
each year in unpaid taxes on internet sales alone.
Passing the Main Street Fairness Act would help State and local
governments balance their budgets without cutting spending or raising
new taxes.
The Main Street Fairness Act is supported by the National Governors'
Association, National Conference on State Legislatures, Governing Board
of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, National Retail
Federation, International Council of Shopping Centers, Retail Industry
Leaders Association, and the National Association of Real Estate
Investment Trusts.
The Main Street Fairness Act will level the playing field for our
small businesses. I urge its passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1452
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Main
Street Fairness Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Consent of Congress.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Authorization to require collection of sales and use taxes.
Sec. 5. Determinations by governing board and judicial review of such
determinations.
Sec. 6. Minimum simplification requirements.
Sec. 7. Limitation.
Sec. 8. Expedited judicial review.
Sec. 9. Definitions.
Sec. 10. Severability.
Sec. 11. Sense of Congress on digital goods and services.
SEC. 2. CONSENT OF CONGRESS.
Congress consents to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax
Agreement.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) States should be encouraged to simplify their sales and
use tax systems.
(2) As a matter of economic policy and basic fairness,
similar sales transactions should be treated equally, without
regard to the manner in which sales are transacted, whether
in person, through the mail, over the telephone, on the
Internet, or by other means.
(3) Congress may facilitate such equal taxation consistent
with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Quill
Corp. v. North Dakota.
(4) States that voluntarily and adequately simplify their
tax systems should be authorized to correct the present
inequities in taxation through requiring sellers to collect
taxes on sales of goods or services delivered in-state,
without regard to the location of the seller.
(5) The States have experience, expertise, and a vital
interest in the collection of sales and use taxes, and thus
should take the lead in developing and implementing sales and
use tax collection systems that are fair, efficient, and non-
discriminatory in their application and that will simplify
the process for both sellers and buyers.
[[Page S5074]]
(6) Online consumer privacy is of paramount importance to
the growth of electronic commerce and must be protected.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION TO REQUIRE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE
TAXES.
(a) Grant of Authority.--
(1) In general.--Each Member State under the Streamlined
Sales and Use Tax Agreement is authorized, subject to the
requirements of this section, to require all sellers not
qualifying for the small seller exception to collect and
remit sales and use taxes with respect to remote sales
sourced to that Member State under the Agreement.
(2) Requirements for authority.--The authorization provided
under paragraph (1) shall be granted once all of the
following have occurred:
(A) Ten States comprising at least 20 percent of the total
population of all States imposing a sales tax, as determined
by the most recent Federal census, have petitioned for
membership and have become Member States under the Agreement.
(B) The following necessary operational aspects of the
Agreement have been implemented by the Governing Board:
(i) Provider and system certification.
(ii) Setting of monetary allowance by contract with
providers.
(iii) Implementation of an online multistate registration
system.
(iv) Adoption of a standard form for claiming exemptions
electronically.
(v) Establishment of advisory councils.
(vi) Promulgation of rules and procedures for dispute
resolution.
(vii) Promulgation of rules and procedures for audits.
(viii) Provisions for funding and staffing the Governing
Board.
(C) Each Member State has met the requirements to provide
and maintain the databases for sales and use taxes and the
taxability matrix described in the Agreement, pursuant to
requirements of the Governing Board.
(3) Limitation of authority.--The authorization provided
under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall be granted notwithstanding any other provision of
law; and
(B) is dependent upon the Agreement, as amended, meeting
the minimum simplification requirements of section 6.
(b) Termination of Authority.--
(1) In general.--The authorization provided under
subsection (a) shall terminate for all States if--
(A) the requirements contained in subsection (a) cease to
be satisfied; or
(B) any amendment adopted to the Agreement after the date
of the enactment of this Act is inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act.
(2) Loss of member state status.--The authorization
provided under subsection (a) shall terminate for a Member
State, if such Member State no longer meets the requirements
for Member State status under the terms of the Agreement or
the provisions of this Act.
(c) Determination of Status.--
(1) In general.--The Governing Board shall determine if
Member States are in compliance with the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b) and whether each Member State meets
the minimum simplification requirements of section 6, and
shall reevaluate such determination on an annual basis.
(2) Compliance determination.--Upon the determination of
the Governing Board that all the requirements of subsection
(a) have been satisfied, the authority to require a seller to
collect and remit sales and use taxes shall commence on the
first day of a calendar quarter at least 6 months after the
date the Governing Board makes its determination.
(3) Noncompliance determination.--Upon a final
determination by the Governing Board that a Member State is
not in compliance with the minimum simplification
requirements of section 6 or is otherwise not in compliance
with the Agreement, that Member State shall lose its remote
seller collection authority on the earlier of--
(A) the date specified by the Governing Board; or
(B) the later of--
(i) the first day of January at least 2 years after the
Governing Board finally determined the State was not
compliant; or
(ii) the first day of a calendar quarter following the end
of one full session of the State's legislature beginning
after the Governing Board finally determined the State was
not compliant.
For purposes of this section, the terms ``final
determination'' or ``finally determined'' shall mean that all
appeals processes provided for in the Agreement have been
exhausted or the time for pursuing such appeals has expired.
An action before the Federal Court of Claims pursuant to
section 5 shall not operate to stay a State's loss of
collection authority.
(4) Restoration of authority.--Any Member State that loses
its collection authority under this section must comply with
all provisions of this section to have its remote seller
collection authority restored.
SEC. 5. DETERMINATIONS BY GOVERNING BOARD AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF SUCH DETERMINATIONS.
(a) Petition.--At any time after the Governing Board has
made the determinations required under section 4(c), any
person who may be affected by the Agreement may petition the
Governing Board for a determination on any issue related to
the implementation of the Agreement or on a Member State's
compliance with this Act or the Agreement.
(b) Review in Court of Federal Claims.--Any person who
submits a petition under subsection (a) may bring an action
against the Governing Board in the United States Court of
Federal Claims for judicial review of the action of the
Governing Board on that petition if--
(1) the petition relates to an issue of whether--
(A) a Member State has satisfied or continues to satisfy
the requirements for Member State status under the Agreement;
(B) the Governing Board has performed a nondiscretionary
duty of the Governing Board under the Agreement;
(C) the Agreement--
(i) continues to satisfy the minimum simplification
requirements of section 6; or
(ii) otherwise continues to be consistent with the
provisions of this Act; or
(D) any other requirement of section 4 has been satisfied;
and
(2) the petition is denied by the Governing Board in whole
or in part with respect to that issue, or the Governing Board
fails to act on the petition with respect to that issue not
later than the 6-month period beginning on the day after the
date on which the petition was submitted.
(c) Timing of Action for Review.--An action for review
under this section shall be initiated not later than 60 days
after the denial of the petition by the Governing Board, or,
if the Governing Board fails to act on the petition, not
later than 60 days after the end of the 6-month period
beginning on the day after the date on which the petition was
submitted.
(d) Standard of Review.--
(1) In general.--In any action for review under this
section, the court shall set aside the actions, findings, and
conclusions of the Governing Board found to be arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.
(2) Remand.--If the court sets aside any action, finding,
or conclusion of the Governing Board under paragraph (1), the
court shall remand the case to the Governing Board for
further action consistent with the decision of the court.
(3) Nonmonetary relief.--In connection with any remand
under paragraph (2), the court may not award monetary relief,
but may award declaratory and injunctive relief.
(e) Jurisdiction.--
(1) Generally.--Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 1510. JURISDICTION REGARDING THE STREAMLINED SALES AND
USE TAX AGREEMENT.
``The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over actions for judicial review of
determinations of the Governing Board of the Streamlined
Sales and Use Tax Agreement under the terms and conditions
provided in section 5 of the Main Street Fairness Act.''.
(2) Conforming amendment to table of sections.--The table
of sections for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1510. Jurisdiction regarding the streamlined sales and use tax
agreement.''.
SEC. 6. MINIMUM SIMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--The minimum simplification requirements
for the Agreement are as follows:
(1) A centralized, one-stop, multistate registration system
that a seller may elect to use to register with the Member
States, provided a seller may also elect to register directly
with a Member State, and further provided that privacy and
confidentiality controls shall be placed on the multistate
registration system so that it may not be used for any
purpose other than the administration of sales and use taxes.
Furthermore, no taxing authority within a Member State or a
Member State that has withdrawn or been expelled from the
Agreement may use registration with the centralized
registration system for the purpose of, or as a factor in
determining, whether a seller has a nexus with that Member
State for any tax at any time.
(2) Uniform definitions of products and product-based
exemptions from which a Member State may choose its
individual tax base, provided, however, that all local
jurisdictions in that Member State with respect to which a
tax is imposed or collected, shall have a common tax base
identical to the State tax base of that Member State. A
Member State may enact product-based exemptions without
restriction if the Agreement does not have a definition for
the product or for a term that includes the product. A Member
State shall relax the good faith requirement for acceptance
of exemption certificates in accordance with section 317 of
the Agreement, as in effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(3) Uniform rules for sourcing and attributing transactions
to particular taxing jurisdictions.
(4) Uniform procedures for the certification of service
providers and software on which a seller may elect to rely in
order to determine Member State sales and use tax rates and
taxability.
(5) Uniform rules for bad debts and rounding.
(6) Uniform requirements for tax returns and remittances.
(7) Consistent electronic filing and remittance methods.
[[Page S5075]]
(8) Single, State-level administration of all Member State
and local sales and use taxes, including a requirement for a
State-level filing of tax returns in each Member State.
(9) A provision requiring the elimination by each Member
State of caps and thresholds on the application of sales and
use tax rates and exemptions based on value, provided that
this limitation does not apply to the items identified in
sections 308C, 322, and 323 of the Agreement, as in effect on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(10) A provision requiring each Member State to complete a
taxability matrix, as adopted by the Governing Board. The
matrix shall include information regarding terms defined by
the Agreement in the Library of Definitions. The matrix shall
also include, pursuant to the requirements of the Governing
Board, information on use-, entity-, and product-based
exemptions.
(11) A provision requiring that each Member State relieves
a seller or service provider from liability to that Member
State and local jurisdiction for collection of the incorrect
amount of sales or use tax, and relieves the purchaser from
penalties stemming from such liability, provided that
collection of the improper amount is the result of relying on
information provided by that Member State regarding tax
rates, boundaries, or taxing jurisdiction assignments, or in
the taxability matrix regarding terms defined by the
Agreement in the Library of Definitions.
(12) Audit procedures for sellers, including an option
under which a seller not qualifying for the small business
exception may request, by notifying the Governing Board, to
be subject to a single audit on behalf of all Member States
for sales and use taxes. The Governing Board, in its
discretion, may authorize such a single audit.
(13)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E), a
provision requiring that in order for a Member State to
require collection with respect to remote sales under section
4, the Member State shall provide compensation for expenses
incurred by a seller directly in administering, collecting,
and remitting sales and use taxes to that Member State. Such
compensation may vary in each Member State as provided in the
Agreement.
(B) Congress hereby finds that the compensation for
expenses incurred by sellers required of Member States under
the terms of the Agreement, as in effect on the enactment of
this Act, is the minimum compensation necessary, when
considered in connection with the simplification requirements
contained in the Agreement on the date authority to require
collection commences under section 4, to satisfy the
requirement under subparagraph (A) on such date.
(C)(i) A provision requiring that the minimum compensation
required of a Member State under subparagraph (A) may be
modified as follows:
(I) Adjusted in relationship to changes in the size of the
small business exemption adopted by the Governing Board.
(II) Decreased as additional simplifications and
improvements in technology reduce collection costs.
(III) Increased if provisions of the Agreement are adopted
that increase collection costs.
(ii) Any such modification in the minimum required
compensation must be based on an independent review of the
expenses incurred by sellers in administering, collecting,
and remitting sales and use taxes and shall consider all
changes impacting such expenses and take into account and be
proportional to the increase or decrease in the expenses
incurred by sellers in administering, collecting, and
remitting sales and use taxes.
(D) The compensation required by subparagraph (A) shall be
provided pursuant to the implementation schedule set out in
the Agreement. Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a Member
State from providing compensation greater than the amount
required by this Act or the Agreement or on a date earlier
than required by this Act or the Agreement.
(E) Compensation necessary to meet the requirement of
subparagraph (A) may be provided to a seller or a third party
service provider whom a seller has contracted with to perform
the sales and use tax responsibilities of a seller.
(14) Appropriate protections for consumer privacy.
(15) Governance procedures and mechanisms to ensure timely,
consistent, and uniform implementation and adherence to the
principles of the streamlined system and the terms of the
Agreement.
(16) A uniform rule to establish a small seller exception
to a requirement to collect authorized by this Act.
(17) Uniform rules and procedures for sales tax holidays.
(18) Uniform rules and procedures to address refunds and
credits for sales taxes relating to customer returns,
restocking fees, discounts and coupons, and rules to address
allocations of shipping and handling and discounts applied to
multiple item and multiple seller orders.
(b) Requirement to Provide Simplified Tax Systems.--
(1) In general.--The requirements of this section are
intended to ensure that each Member State provides and
maintains the necessary simplification to its sales and use
tax system to warrant the collection authority granted to
such Member State in section 4.
(2) Reduction of administrative burdens.--The requirements
of this section should be construed--
(A) to require each Member State to substantially reduce
the administrative burdens associated with sales and use
taxes; and
(B) as allowing each Member State to exercise flexibility
in how these requirements are satisfied.
(3) Exception.--In instances where exceptions to the
requirements of this section can be exercised in a manner
that does not materially increase the administrative burden
on a seller obligated to collect or pay the taxes, such
exceptions are permissible.
(c) No Requirement to Exempt From or Impose Tax.--Nothing
in this Act or the Agreement shall require any Member State
or any local taxing jurisdiction to exempt, or to impose a
tax on any product, or to adopt any particular type of tax,
or to impose the same rate of tax as any other taxing
jurisdiction.
SEC. 7. LIMITATION.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as--
(1) subjecting a seller to franchise taxes, income taxes,
or licensing requirements of a Member State or political
subdivision thereof; or
(2) affecting the application of such taxes or requirements
or enlarging or reducing the authority of any Member State to
impose such taxes or requirements.
(b) No Effect on Nexus, etc.--
(1) In general.--No obligation imposed by virtue of the
authority granted by section 4 shall be considered in
determining whether a seller has a nexus with any Member
State for any other tax purpose.
(2) Permissible member state authority.--Except as provided
in subsection (a), and in section 4, nothing in this Act
permits or prohibits a Member State from--
(A) licensing or regulating any person;
(B) requiring any person to qualify to transact intrastate
business;
(C) subjecting any person to State taxes not related to the
sale of goods or services; or
(D) exercising authority over matters of interstate
commerce.
SEC. 8. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Three-judge District Court Hearing.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, any civil action challenging the
constitutionality of this Act, or any provision thereof,
shall be heard by a district court of 3 judges convened
pursuant to the provisions of section 2284 of title 28,
United States Code.
(b) Appellate Review.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of
the court of 3 judges in an action under subsection (a)
holding this Act, or any provision thereof, unconstitutional
shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to
the United States Supreme Court.
(2) 30-day time limit.--Any appeal under paragraph (1)
shall be filed not more than 30 days after the date of entry
of such judgment, decree, or order.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act the following definitions
apply:
(1) Governing board.--The term ``Governing Board'' means
the governing board established by the Streamlined Sales and
Use Tax Agreement.
(2) Member state.--The term ``Member State''--
(A) means a Member State as that term is used under the
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement as in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) does not include associate members under the Agreement.
(3) Nondiscretionary duty of the governing board.--The term
``nondiscretionary duty of the Governing Board'' means any
duty of the Governing Board specified in the Agreement as a
requirement for action by use of the term ``shall'',
``will'', or ``is required to''.
(4) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual,
trust, estate, fiduciary, partnership, corporation, limited
liability company, or any other legal entity, and includes a
State or local government.
(5) Remote sale.--The term ``remote sale'' means a sale of
goods or services attributed to a particular Member State
with respect to which a seller does not have adequate
physical presence to establish nexus under the law existing
on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act so as
to allow such Member State to require, without regard to the
authority granted by this Act, the seller to collect and
remit taxes covered by this Act with respect to such sale.
(6) Remote seller.--The term ``remote seller'' means any
seller who makes a remote sale.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any
other territory or possession of the United States.
(8) Streamlined sales and use tax agreement.--The term
``Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement'' (or ``the
Agreement'') means the multistate agreement with that title
adopted on November 12, 2002, as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act and unless the context otherwise
indicates as further amended from time to time.
SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional,
[[Page S5076]]
the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act,
and the application of the provisions of such to any person
or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DIGITAL GOODS AND SERVICES.
It is the sense of Congress that each Member State that is
a party to the Agreement should work with other Member States
that are also parties to the Agreement to prevent double
taxation in situations where a foreign country has imposed a
transaction tax on a digital good or service.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Brown of
Massachusetts, Mr. Levin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Inouye):
S. 1454. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for extended months of Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs for kidney transplant patients and other renal dialysis
provisions; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Comprehensive
Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act''
with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Levin, Cardin, Schumer, Inouye,
and Brown of Massachusetts.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about
13 percent of American adults, 26 million people, have chronic kidney
disease. Some of these individuals can improve their condition with
medication and lifestyle changes, but approximately half a million of
them have irreversible kidney failure, or end-stage renal disease,
ESRD. These patients require dialysis or a kidney transplant to
survive.
Organ transplantation is a medical success story. Thousands of
transplants are done every year, and for the patients fortunate enough
to receive a donated organ, the quality and length of their lives can
be dramatically improved. Of the more than 28,000 transplants performed
in 2010, over 16,898 of them were kidney transplants.
A large portion of these kidney transplants were paid for by the
Medicare system, which provides healthcare to aged and disabled
Americans, as well as those living with ESRD. Medicare also covers
dialysis for patients who have not received a donor kidney and
immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplant recipients. Organ
transplant recipients must take immunosuppressive drugs every day for
the life of their transplant to reduce the risk of organ rejection.
In 2000, Congress wisely eliminated the 36-month time limitation for
aged and disabled beneficiaries who had Medicare status at the time of
transplant. So today, for an older or disabled person on Medicare,
immunosuppressive drugs are covered by Medicare for the life of the
transplant.
However, we still have an unfair and unrealistic gap in coverage for
people with ESRD who are neither disabled nor elderly. For those
transplant recipients, Medicare coverage, including coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs, ends 36 months after transplantation. Without
regular access to immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection, many
patients find themselves back in a risky and frightening place, in need
of a new kidney. This is economically inefficient and morally wrong.
Since Medicare covers the cost of the transplant for end stage renal
disease, it makes sense for Medicare to preserve this investment by
covering anti-rejection drugs. It would be far less expensive for
Medicare to cover immunosuppressive drugs at a cost of $10,000 to
$20,000 a year than to pay for dialysis at $78,000 a year or another
transplant at a cost of $110,000 if a patient's kidney fails and he is
once again eligible for Medicare coverage.
I am pleased to introduce the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug
Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act along with my colleagues.
This legislation would allow kidney transplant recipients to continue
Medicare coverage for the purpose of immunosuppressive drugs only. All
other Medicare coverage would end 36 months after the transplant.
It is time to pass this legislation to provide continuous coverage
for immunosuppressive drugs through Medicare. My legislation will
reduce the need for dialysis and kidney re-transplants and provide
reliable, sustained access to critically important, life-saving
medications for thousands of Americans. In both moral and economic
terms, this is the right decision.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1454
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive
Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant
Patients Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. EXTENDED MONTHS OF COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE
DRUGS FOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANT PATIENTS AND OTHER
RENAL DIALYSIS PROVISIONS.
(a) Medicare Entitlement to Immunosuppressive Drugs for
Kidney Transplant Recipients .--
(1) Kidney transplant recipients.--Section 226A(b)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(b)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``(except for eligibility for enrollment under part
B solely for purposes of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs
described in section 1861(s)(2)(J))'' before ``, with the
thirty-sixth month''.
(2) Individuals eligible only for coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs.--
(A) Section 1836 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395o) is amended--
(i) by striking ``Every'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
Every''; and
(ii) by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Individuals Eligible for Immunosuppressive Drug
Coverage.--Beginning on January 1, 2012, every individual
whose insurance benefits under part A have ended (whether
before, on, or after such date) by reason of section
226A(b)(2) is eligible for enrollment in the insurance
program established by this part solely for purposes of
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Sections 1837, 1838, and 1839 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(p), 42 U.S.C.
1395(q), 42 U.S.C. 1395(r)) are each amended by striking
``1836'' and inserting ``1836(a)'' each place it appears.
(3) Enrollment for individuals only eligible for coverage
of immunosuppressive drugs.--Section 1837 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(p)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(m)(1) Any individual who is eligible under section
1836(b) to enroll in the medical insurance program
established under this part for purposes of coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs may enroll only in such manner and
form as may be prescribed by regulations, and only during an
enrollment period described in this subsection.
``(2) An individual described in paragraph (1) may enroll
beginning on the first day of the third month before the
month in which the individual first satisfies section
1836(b).
``(3) An individual described in paragraph (1) whose
entitlement for hospital insurance benefits under part A ends
by reason of section 226A(b)(2) on or after January 1, 2012,
shall be deemed to have enrolled in the medical insurance
program established by this part for purposes of coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs.''.
(4) Coverage period for individuals only eligible for
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.--
(A) In general.--Section 1838 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395q) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(g) In the case of an individual described in section
1836(b), the following rules shall apply:
``(1) In the case of such an individual who is deemed to
have enrolled in part B for coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs under section 1837(m)(3), such individual's coverage
period shall begin on the first day of the month in which the
individual first satisfies section 1836(b).
``(2) In the case of such an individual who enrolls in part
B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section
1837(m)(2), such individual's coverage period shall begin on
the first day of the month in which the individual first
satisfies section 1836(b) or the month following the month in
which the individual so enrolls, whichever is later.
``(3) The provisions of subsections (b) and (d) shall apply
with respect to an individual described in paragraph (1) or
(2).
``(4) In addition to the reasons for termination under
subsection (b), the coverage period of an individual
described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall end when the
individual becomes entitled to benefits under this title
under section 226(a), 226(b), or 226A.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--Section 1838(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395q(b)) is amended, in the matter
following paragraph (2), by adding ``or section 1837(m)(3)''
after ``section 1837(f)'' each place it appears.
(5) Premiums for individuals only eligible for coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs.--Section 1839 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``No increase in the premium shall be effected
for individuals who are enrolled pursuant to section 1836(b)
for coverage only of immunosuppressive drugs.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
[[Page S5077]]
``(j) Determination of Premium for Individuals Only
Eligible for Coverage of Immunosuppressive Drugs.--The
Secretary shall, during September of each year, determine and
promulgate a monthly premium rate for the succeeding calendar
year for individuals who enroll only for the purpose of
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b).
Such premium shall be equal to 35 percent of the monthly
actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over, determined
according to paragraph (1), for that succeeding calendar
year. The monthly premium of each individual enrolled for
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b) for
each month shall be the amount promulgated in this
subsection. Such amount shall be adjusted in accordance with
subsections (c) and (f).''.
(6) Government contribution.--Section 1844(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; plus'';
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) a Government contribution equal to the estimated
aggregate reduction in premiums payable under part B that
results from establishing the premium at 35 percent of the
actuarial rate under section 1839(j) instead of 50 percent of
the actuarial rate for individuals who enroll only for the
purpose of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section
1836(b).''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following flush matter:
``The Government contribution under paragraph (4) shall be
treated as premiums payable and deposited for purposes of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).''.
(7) Extension of secondary payer requirements for esrd
beneficiaries eligible for coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs.--Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395(y)(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``With regard to immunosuppressive
drugs furnished to an individual who enrolls for the purpose
of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b)
on or after January 1, 2012, this subparagraph shall apply
without regard to any time limitation, except that when such
individual becomes entitled to benefits under this title
under sections 226(a) or 226(b), or entitled to or eligible
for benefits under this title under section 226A, the
provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B), and the time
limitations under this subparagraph, respectively, shall
apply.''.
(8) Ensuring coverage under the medicare savings program.--
Section 1905(p)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(p)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``or an individual
who is enrolled under part B for the purpose of coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b)'' after
``section 1818''.
(9) Part d.--Section 1860D-1(a)(3)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(a)(3)(A)) is amended by
inserting ``(but not including an individual enrolled solely
for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section
1836(b))'' before the period at the end.
____________________