[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 55 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2833-S2840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT 0F 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 743 which the clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 41,
S. 743, a bill to restore States' sovereign rights to enforce
State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other
purposes.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 41, S. 743, To restore States'
sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax
laws, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Richard J. Durbin, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Manchin III, Richard
Blumenthal, Patrick J. Leahy, Martin Heinrich, Angus S.
King, Jr., Al Franken, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Mark
Begich, Brian Schatz, Robert Menendez, Tammy Baldwin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 743, a bill to restore States sovereign rights
to enforce State and local sales and use taxes, and for other purposes,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Shaheen), are
necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
[[Page S2834]]
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 74, nays 20, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]
YEAS--74
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cowan
Crapo
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
NAYS--20
Ayotte
Baucus
Coburn
Cornyn
Cruz
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Kirk
Lee
McConnell
Paul
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Tester
Toomey
Vitter
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Boxer
Johnson (WI)
Lautenberg
Merkley
Murkowski
Shaheen
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are
20. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Vote Explanation
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unable to attend the rollcall
vote that occurred on Monday, April 22, 2013. Had I been present, I
would have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed to S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time during
adjournment, recess, and morning business count postcloture on the
motion to proceed to S. 743.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I designate the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin, as the floor manager for the consideration of S. 743.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Colorado. My
remarks are about 25 minutes. Are the remarks of the Senator from
Colorado significantly shorter?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I have 3 or 4 minutes of
remarks.
Mr. FRANKEN. I yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am very grateful to my
colleague from Minnesota for yielding for those 3 or 4 minutes. I thank
him for his forbearance.
I rise in support of our local small businesses and retailers across
Colorado and I would like to think across our great country. Senator
Durbin and Senator Enzi have introduced a bipartisan bill, the
Marketplace Fairness Act, of which I am a cosponsor. It would level the
playing field for businesses located in Colorado by requiring out-of-
State online sellers to collect and remit the same local and State
sales taxes they have to pay.
It just makes common sense, which is why a similar amendment during
the budget debate a few weeks ago, which I also cosponsored, passed by
a bipartisan vote of 75 to 24.
The Marketplace Fairness Act is about achieving equitable treatment
for all sales so businesses with a physical presence in Colorado,
employing Colorado workers living in our communities, are not at a
competitive disadvantage with out-of-State businesses that sell
products online.
Online marketplaces have created great companies and innovative ways
of doing business, but Federal law has failed to keep up with the pace
of online sales. Again, we have had a lot of innovation in the online
space, but Federal law has failed to keep up with the pace of online
sales.
Back when trading posts and local markets were the most prevalent
places for consumer goods, they did not have to worry about out-of-
State sellers. Today, though, nearly 1 in 10 sales occurs online.
Because of these online sales, we now have two inequitable forms of
treatment in the marketplace: one where local brick-and-mortar
retailers have to pay sales taxes and one where out-of-State online
retailers get to take advantage of a loophole and avoid collecting any
sales taxes at all. This has, unfortunately, created a disincentive to
shop at and support our small local businesses.
It has been said, for at least a decade, that fixing this inequity is
too difficult or it will burden certain online retailers and consumers.
However, it should be noted this legislation requires States to
simplify sales tax laws that apply to these out-of-State sales, in
addition to providing software free of charge to sellers in order to
make the task of collecting and remitting this revenue as painless as
possible.
Many States have already taken this step. My State of Colorado is
considering legislation this year to conform to the rules set out in
this bill.
The version of the Marketplace Fairness Act we are going to consider
has been negotiated by Members of both political parties, and it is a
testament to what we can do when we work together to benefit our
country and our economy. Not only will this legislation help level the
playing field for mom-and-pop shops across our State and our country,
it will help restore a lost revenue base for local governments that has
slowly been eroded with the expansion of online out-of-State sales.
Most Americans know those commonsense, fair taxes support our
schools, police and fire departments, and other critical local
services. At the very least I think we can all agree that we do not
want to penalize Main Street retailers for creating jobs in Colorado
communities, which is why this bipartisan bill is so important.
I look forward to voting for the Marketplace Fairness Act, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. I want to acknowledge my
colleague from Minnesota for yielding me the time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly.) The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Minnesota yield for a moment? I
believe the Senator from Oregon would like to make a very brief
statement for the Record.
Mr. FRANKEN. I will yield.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. The vote was closed
as I came in the door. Had I been here, I would have voted against
cloture. I want that to be a clear part of the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about climate
change. But I first do want to say how pleased I am that we just got
cloture to move to debate on the Marketplace Fairness Act. I am a
strong supporter of the legislation. As I said, I am a cosponsor. I
look forward to the upcoming debate. I plan to speak on this
legislation further tomorrow.
Now I would like to talk about climate change. More specifically, I
rise to suggest that we in this body talk more about climate change so
that we can agree on taking action to address it. We need to address
the environmental impacts that we are currently facing and the future
impacts that will only become exponentially worse if we fail to act.
2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States.
In fact, it beat the previous record by a full degree.
To give you some idea about how remarkable a full degree of warming
in 1 year is, scientists tell us since the last ice age 20,000 years
ago the Earth has warmed only 16 degrees at the most. Since we began
actually measuring
[[Page S2835]]
temperatures in the continental United States and recording them 117
years ago, the variance between the coldest year and the warmest year
has only been 4.2 degrees.
So for the temperature to jump a full degree in 1 year is not just
remarkable, it is alarming. Often when people consider the harmful
consequences of climate change and its cost, they are talking about the
future. But make no mistake, climate change is already costing the
United States serious money.
2012 was a year when a historic drought caused more than 70 percent
of U.S. counties to be declared disaster areas. Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack has estimated the drought's impact on the agricultural
sector to be around $50 to $60 billion. That cost gets passed on to
every American. The drought destroyed or damaged major crops all over
this country, making corn and soybeans more expensive, increasing
animal feed costs. So Americans are paying more for meats and other
animal-based products.
The 2012 drought dramatically lowered water levels on the Mississippi
River, seriously interfering with our ability to transport our
agricultural goods to market to compete with those from other
countries. So that barges did not run aground, shippers sent them down
the Mississippi River the last few months half full, say, with
soybeans, making our beans less competitive with Brazilian beans.
More and more of my conversation with Minnesota soybean growers who
export over one-third of their crop focused on this very issue. Climate
change is exacerbating our Nation's wildfires, and that is costing us
serious money. When Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testified before
the Senate Energy Committee, I asked him about the link between forest
fires and climate change. He told us that throughout the country we are
seeing longer fire seasons on average by more than 30 days. Wildfires
are also larger and more intense.
I asked Chief Tidwell whether scientists at the Forest Service
thought that climate change was increasing the size and intensity of
wildfires and extending their season. Without hesitation he said yes.
The Forest Service is spending more and more of its budget fighting
wildfires, now about half of its budget. Longer fire seasons and larger
more intense fires are just going to eat up more of that budget.
Not only is climate change worsening our forest fires, it is also
exacerbating other problems plaguing our forests. That includes a very
serious bark beetle crop. The bark beetle is normally kept in check
because cold winters at high altitudes kill its larva.
Let's talk about the bark beetle at high altitudes. Their larva used
to freeze. But now, because of climate change, that is not happening.
The winters have gotten warmer and at higher altitudes, and the bark
beetles are surviving. That means they are destroying more forests.
Similarly, in some Colorado forests scientists have shown that
because of warmer weather, mountain pine beetles have gone from
reproducing once a year to twice a year. In a little over a decade,
this mountain pine beetle has killed more than 70,000 square miles'
worth of trees. That is an area equivalent to the entire State of
Washington.
Of course, we cannot talk about climate change without talking about
sea level rise. I serve on the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Several months ago we had a hearing on sea level rise. We
heard testimony about how rising sea level is increasing the size of
flood zones and increasing damage that occurs from storm surges.
One of the witnesses told us that just a few extra inches of sea
level could result in a storm surge that could flood the New York City
subway system. It sounded like something out of science fiction. Yet a
little over 6 months later that is exactly what happened. That is
exactly what happened when Hurricane Sandy hit New York City and
flooded the subways.
My colleagues do not need to be reminded of the cost of Hurricane
Sandy. It is costing taxpayers a staggering $60 billion. Unfortunately,
only one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, the ranking
member, Senator Murkowski, attended this hearing. This has been pretty
much the case whenever we have a hearing that even tangentially relates
to climate change.
A number of my colleagues in Congress do not believe that human
activities contribute to climate change. Many others, I suspect, do not
talk about climate change because addressing it requires making some
difficult choices. But let's be clear about this. Climate change is
already costing us. If we do not act now, it will worsen dramatically
and be far more costly.
The Defense Department has studied potential threats to national
security imposed by climate change. DOD's 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review states that climate change may act as an accelerant of
instability or conflict. That, in turn, would place burdens on civilian
institutions and militaries around the world. The top commander in the
Pacific, ADM Samuel Locklear, has said the biggest long-term security
challenge in the Pacific is climate change. As the Pacific commander he
understands the impact sea level rise and extreme weather events can
have on our military resources and on civilian populations in the
Pacific.
My constituents in Minnesota also understand the threat of climate
change. That is why recently nearly 400 people gathered at a local
Lutheran church in Willmar, MN, to talk about climate change. Willmar
is not a big city. So when this many people gather in one place, you
know it is a big deal. They are concerned about climate change and the
marked increase in severe weather occurrences.
But when they look to Washington they see a disconnect. They see a
disconnect between what the country is experiencing and what Washington
is doing about it--or, rather, what Washington is not doing. Outside of
Washington, and not just in Minnesota, things are different. In fact,
many respected Republican leaders outside of Washington understand the
importance of addressing climate change.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, for example, Republican Governor
Chris Christie of New Jersey acknowledged that climate change is a
problem and that human activities are playing a role.
Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, also a
Republican, has launched an organization to fight climate change.
Former Utah Governor and Republican Presidential candidate John
Huntsman has noted that whenever a party takes a position that runs
counter to the position of 98 out of every 100 scientists, that party
has a problem.
Governor Huntsman is right. Let me illustrate with an analogy. Say
you went to a doctor who told you: You know, you better start eating
more sensibly and start exercising because you are tremendously
overweight. I see in your file that your father died of a heart attack
at an early age. So you really have to go on a diet and start working
out.
You say: You know what, I would like a second opinion.
So you go to a second doctor and he examines you, or she examines
you, and says: OK, look, you have a family history of heart disease.
Your father died of a heart attack at 40. You weigh over 300 pounds.
Your cholesterol is out of control. Your blood pressure is through the
roof. It would just be irresponsible of me not to immediately send you
to the Mayo Clinic to this place I know. You have to go there.
Then you say: Thanks, doctor, but I would really like a third
opinion.
The third doctor says: Wow. This is a problem. You know, looking at
your family history and looking at you and your tests, I am amazed you
are still alive. You have to do something about this.
You say: You know, I would really like a fourth opinion--and this
keeps going. It takes months. Finally, you get to the 50th doctor. The
50th doctor examines you and says: Boy, it is a good thing you came to
me because all this diet and exercise would have been a waste. You are
doing just fine. Those other doctors, well, they are in the pockets of
the fresh food and vegetable people. Enjoy life as much as you want and
watch a lot of TV.
Then you learn this doctor was paid his salary by the makers of
Cheetos. Don't get me wrong--Cheetos are a delicious snack. They can
and should be eaten in moderation.
If 98 out of 100 doctors tell me I have a problem, I should take
their advice. If those two other doctors are paid by
[[Page S2836]]
``Big Snack Food'' the way certain climate deniers are paid by ``Big
Coal,'' I shouldn't take their advice. However, 98 out of 100 climate
scientists are telling us we have a problem.
Governor Huntsman is right. Outside of Washington, many people get
this. Even some of the very companies that previously funded anti-
climate change efforts have turned the page on this issue. ExxonMobil
used to fund the Heartland Institute, which is one of the leading
climate change denial organizations. If you go to ExxonMobil's Web site
today, it states, ``Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant
risks to society and ecosystems.'' Shell Oil states on its Web site,
``CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate
change.'' Even the major oil and gas companies have begun to
acknowledge that climate change is real.
I respectfully suggest that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle here in Congress also need to engage in a serious conversation on
climate change. At a time when Americans are dealing with record
droughts and devastating hurricanes, the Senate cannot afford to simply
ignore climate change. We need to talk about this, as Democratic and
Republican leaders outside of Washington are talking about it.
Ultimately, we need to come together to address climate change before
its damaging costs to society are out of control.
I do not pretend this will be easy. Some people will point out that
climate change is a global problem. It is. We can't solve it alone. We
can't, and they are right. Emissions in the developing world are now on
the rise. China surpasses the United States in total greenhouse gas
emissions--not per capita; we are still ahead on that. But China is
also making major investment in renewable energy. According to the
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2011 China led the world in
renewable energy investments, with nearly one-fifth of the global
total. This is in spite of the fact that China's GDP in 2011 was half
of our GDP. If we are going to lead the clean energy race and create
good-paying jobs for Americans, we must invest in our renewable energy
infrastructure.
Last year the Senate Energy Committee heard testimony regarding a
report from the American Energy Innovation Council's report entitled
``Catalyzing Ingenuity.'' The report, authored by former Lockheed
Martin CEO Norman Augustine, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and other
business leaders, states:
The country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation
program commensurate with the scale of the national
priorities that are at stake. In fact, rather than improve
the country's energy innovation program and invest in
strategic national interests, the current political
environment is creating strong pressure to pull back from
such efforts.
This is very important. I encourage my colleagues--especially those
who oppose Federal funding for clean energy--to read this report
because what people often forget is that this is nothing new.
Government has always supported strategic energy priorities. As Mr.
Augustine noted in his testimony, commercial nuclear power was the
result of government investments in naval reactors. Do you know why
natural gas is transforming our energy sector today? It is because of
years of Federal support to develop hydrofracking technology. The
Eastern Gas Shales Project was an initiative the Federal Government
began back in 1976, before hydrofracking was a mature industry. The
project set up and funded dozens of pilot demonstration projects with
universities and private gas companies that tested drilling and
fracturing methods. This investment by the Federal Government was
instrumental in the development of the commercial extraction of natural
gas from shale. In fact, microseismic imaging--a critical tool used in
fracking--was originally developed by Sandia National Laboratory, a
Federal energy laboratory.
The industry was also supported through tax breaks and subsidies. In
fact, Mitchell Energy vice president Dan Stewart said in an interview
that Mitchell Energy's first horizontal well was subsidized by the
Federal Government. Mr. Mitchell said of the Department of Energy:
DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with
it. You cannot diminish DOE's involvement.
So the basis of the natural gas revolution that is helping make
America more energy independent can be traced back to Federal support.
In the same way, we must support the renewable energy sector now. We
need to be the ones--our country, the United States, Americans--we must
be the ones who sell this transformative and environmentally friendly
technology to other nations. We must do this.
We need to start by having a conversation about climate change. It
would be irresponsible to avoid the issue because it is uncomfortable
to talk about. The stakes are too high and we would be shirking our
responsibility to our constituents, to our children, to our
grandchildren, and to posterity. The discussion is not going to be easy
because there are going to be painful tradeoffs. I certainly don't have
all the answers. I do know we need to have the conversation. We cannot
leave this issue to future generations. I have a grandchild on the
way--my first. I don't want to look back and tell him that when his
grandfather was in a position to do something about climate change, he
chose not to because it involved some politically difficult choices. I
don't want to tell him that we compromised our moral integrity for
political expediency.
We all have constituents who care about this issue. When I go back to
Willmar, MN, I want to tell my constituents who met in a church and
spoke about climate change that we heard them. I want to tell them we
are working together across the aisle to talk about and address one of
the most difficult problems we face.
I invite my colleagues to join in this endeavor and make dealing with
climate change a bipartisan issue. We owe it to the Nation and to
future generations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me commend
my colleague from Minnesota for making so many thoughtful points in
this effort to deal with climate change. Having returned from Oregon,
with a whole host of meetings in connection with Earth Day, the Senator
is spot-on in speaking about the enormity of the problem. It is very
clear that the planet is getting warmer, drought is becoming more
serious, the fires are becoming more catastrophic and the storms
increasingly brutal. It is very clear that now Democrats and
Republicans must come together around this issue.
The Senator and I serve together on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. This will be priority business for us, and his thoughtful
remarks today are yet another effort in terms of trying to bring people
together. The focus of the Senator's remarks has been not to say it is
this person's fault or another person's fault, it is about how
Democrats and Republicans need to come together.
I commend my Democratic colleague for his good speech and the good
fortune to chair the subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources,
where he will be able to focus on these issues.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to
30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. The Senate has now moved to the Marketplace Fairness Act.
I say this, frankly, a little dubiously because I think it really ought
to be called the Shop Canada or Shop Mexico Act. It will make it
attractive for businesses located in the United States to set up shops
overseas as the coercion that is applied to the United States will not
affect foreign retailers.
What I wish to do tonight is speak for a brief period of time--
because we are going to have opportunity throughout the week to discuss
this--in the hopes that the points I highlight tonight will help start
a bipartisan effort to attempt to fix what I think are the most serious
problems with the Marketplace Fairness Act.
The essence of my concern is that coercion and discrimination are not
what America is all about. Those are the fundamental principles of the
Marketplace Fairness Act. What I wish to do is be very specific with
respect to how this coercion and discrimination, particularly against
some of the most innovative forces in the American economy, are going
to take their toll.
[[Page S2837]]
With respect to coercion, this is legislation that enabled one State
to impose the enforcement of its laws on 49 other States and the
territories without the approval of such States and territories. Let me
repeat this. It is coercion. It can be forced on these other States
against their will. In effect, under the Marketplace Fairness Act,
businesses may be audited by a myriad of out-of-State tax collectors
and be forced to defend themselves in out-of-State courts.
A vote for the Marketplace Fairness Act without efforts to try to
promote some element of voluntary participation is a vote to subject a
Senator's home State Internet companies to the whim and will of tax
collectors and State courts around the country. This, in essence, is
the coercion aspect of this legislation.
I have suggested to Senators that at a minimum this effort, this
legislation should be altered to allow for voluntary compacts. Congress
would say States could voluntarily take these steps with respect to
interstate tax collection rather than being required to do it. I have
heard my colleagues who say perhaps this would make one State a haven
with respect to Internet sales. The reality is that States rights are
about States rights. One State may look to choose to incent one
particular type of business or another, but this is ultimately a State
decision.
If you are, in fact, a supporter of States rights, why would you
oppose something that allows a State to voluntarily choose what course
it wishes to promote with respect to the collection of online taxes?
This is not what this bill is all about. It is not voluntary, it is
coercive. That is why, in my view, it undermines what I think the
principles of our country are all about. Our country is not about
coercion, it is not about discrimination. This is what the bill,
regrettably, is all about.
Let me outline the second point with respect to how the Marketplace
Fairness Act discriminates against Internet companies. The Marketplace
Fairness Act relies on Internet sellers to determine the address of
where consumers are located in order to generate an approximation of
where goods or services sold by an online retailer will be consumed.
There is no similar requirement with respect to brick-and-mortar
businesses--no similar requirement with respect to brick-and-mortar
businesses--even though consumers often travel across State lines in
order to purchase goods and services that may be unavailable to them in
their home jurisdictions or available at lower sales or use tax rates.
The Marketplace Fairness Act does not require brick-and-mortar firms
to obtain and use consumer information to determine where a good or
service may be consumed. Why should the Federal Government require
Internet companies to collect and remit sales and use taxes on behalf
of consumers but not impose any such burden on brick-and-mortar firms
providing goods and services to out-of-State consumers?
So the irony of this is that really about 15 years ago--and it has
been particularly satisfying to me in terms of our service in the
Senate--as we began to look at policies that would allow innovation and
technology to grow--and I will talk a little about how some of those
policies led to the first investments in social media--we established
two principles with respect to technology policy: No. 1, we said let's
ensure there is no discrimination. What goes on off-line and what goes
on online should be parallel so that we can encourage both parts of the
American economy.
That principle has made a lot of sense. In fact, it has led to a
great many stores--I am sure at home in Indiana for the Presiding
Officer of the Senate--with bricks and clicks looking to try to have a
vigorous presence in States because the two are mutually reinforcing.
To do that we have to ensure there is a policy of nondiscrimination.
What I have done is outline very specifically about how the
Marketplace Fairness Act moves away from that principle of
nondiscrimination by giving, in many jurisdictions, the brick-and-
mortar retailers a leg up. And what I am in favor of is continuing that
policy which has made sense for 15 years.
We also talked about doing no harm and ensuring we especially
promoted voluntary approaches--voluntary approaches. I think it was
before the Presiding Officer was in the Congress, but one of the things
I was especially proud of was our help in generating investment in the
social media back when I came to the Senate. There was a great concern
about censorship online. Of course, all of us, as parents, were
horrified by some of the smut and pornography that was coming available
online, all over the Web, and so a big debate was held.
There were essentially two approaches: One was to set up a big
censorship effort that would say, for example, if somebody posted some
of this horrible pornography on a Web site or a blog, the Web site
would be held secondarily liable for this material posted on the site.
A lot of us said: No way the Net is going to be able to grow if Web
sites and blogs are held liable for something that is posted on their
site, which they probably aren't even going to know anything about
because there are, of course, thousands and thousands of postings--
millions in the case of some of the big sites.
So working with a very conservative Republican in the House,
Congressman Cox, we wrote an alternative approach which encouraged
voluntary approaches with respect to dealing with a societal problem,
and a very serious problem with respect to pornography. Back then the
Congress didn't know how to deal with these issues, so both
approaches--both the censorship approach and the voluntary approach to
help parents filter out the smut--actually got into the law and it went
to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down the censorship
approach and upheld the voluntary bipartisan approach Congressman Cox
and I put together.
Today, when we talk to people in the social media, they will tell us
that voluntary approach was, to a great extent, what encouraged the
first investments in social media. People in social media will say
nobody would have invested in the future Facebooks and Twitters and the
like if they thought the social media sites, the Web sites and the
like, were going to be held secondarily liable for something that was
posted.
That voluntary approach, which did so much to boost our economy, is
being rejected in the Marketplace Fairness Act as it is written because
this bill goes to a coercive approach, as I said, that would outline
the ability for one State to impose the enforcement of its laws on 49
other States and territories without the approval of those States and
territories.
So I bring up this tonight because I am very hopeful as this debate
goes forward and the bill is considered further that at a minimum the
sponsors of the legislation--and all of us here can count and look at
vote totals--will see that allowing for voluntary compacts is really
what States rights are all about, No. 1. It is that voluntary approach
that has made such a difference in encouraging the innovation and
growth of the Internet and technology.
One other point I would like to mention tonight is what this bill
does with respect to America's ability to compete in a global economy.
This is, in effect, an unprecedented approach that would apply local
laws to the global medium that is the Internet.
For example, I just came back--flew about 6,000 miles over the last
few days--from meeting with constituents at home. I was in southern
Oregon until the middle of the day yesterday. They have a big e-
commerce effort going in a wonderful company called Fire Mountain Gems
in Grants Pass, OR, with hundreds of employees and a very exciting
online business. Their big competitor in Grants Pass, OR--which is a
town that has been hard hit economically. We are working hard on their
forestry issues, particularly trying to get the harvest up. That is
something I am working on as chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and I had a good chance to talk about resources
policy with the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
One of the things they very much want to do in Grants Pass is find as
many good-paying jobs as they can, given the fact the economy is
hurting in rural areas.
So as I try to boost the harvest in Grants Pass, OR, and get people
back to work in the woods, I am obviously looking for other areas where
businesses could grow. This legislation, as
[[Page S2838]]
written, will deal a significant body blow to a business's ability to
grow, such as the one I know about in Grants Pass, OR. Here is why: The
legislation doesn't apply to foreign retailers, and the competition for
Fire Mountain Gems is certainly overseas, with a host of companies in
this space.
It also has huge implications for the northern border and the
southern border of our country because so many of the promising
businesses in those communities are going to say to themselves: We are
patriotic Americans. We deeply believe in our country and our values,
but how are we going to compete? How are we going to figure out a way
to wade through more than 9,000 taxing jurisdictions? Wouldn't it be
more sensible to just move a half hour across the border and not have
to go through any of this?
I just don't think this works as it relates to the global economy.
Maybe this bill ought to be called the Shop China or Shop Mexico or
Shop Canada bill. Whatever you call it, it seeks to apply local laws to
a global medium. That, in my view, defies common sense, and, by the
way, that too has been a principle that has been rejected in debates
about tech policy over the years.
So I hope Senators are going to be open to working with the
bipartisan group--there are a host of Senators on both sides of the
aisle who care about these issues--to take some of the principles that
have been central to the growth of innovation, online business--
particularly as it relates to new apps and new technologies--that have
worked for the last few years and build them into this legislation,
rather than repudiate the principles of voluntarism and
nondiscrimination that have been so key, as I have outlined here
tonight, to investment in the social media, to encouraging innovation
through nondiscriminatory tax policies, and to new innovations that we
began to bring into the policy arena, such as digital signatures.
There we had the same thing--a great concern about whether this was
equitable, whether it would work, but after hearings and a thoughtful
analysis, a group of us wrote that law as well. So whether it was
regulation, whether it was taxes, whether it was innovation such as
digital signatures, the four or five laws over the last 15 years that
have paid off for technology and innovation and small business--the
basic principles behind those laws--are being repudiated in this bill
and, I believe, will be injurious to the country.
So my hope is, as we go forward, that we can take some of those
principles that have been key to growth in the technology sector and
start building them into this discussion with respect to collection of
online sales taxes.
By the way, for more than a decade, this has been a topic. I and
others have said we are very open to any and all approaches to collect
taxes owed, and particularly ones that don't amount to what looks like
bureaucratic water torture associated with the collection process. And
I think Senators are underestimating how difficult this will be.
I would particularly cite the proposition that if it was so easy, it
would have been done some time ago. By the way, it would have been done
with voluntary actions through many of these taxing jurisdictions
rather than the coercive approach that is advanced in this legislation.
I see my friend from New Hampshire. I was particularly struck, I
would say to my colleague, about how the principles I am talking about
today--coercion and nondiscrimination--apply in my colleague's State as
well because her State, as so many others, would face the prospect
where online retailers would have one set of burdensome rules that
wouldn't apply to a whole host of other businesses. It brings back the
principle of discrimination we rejected years and years ago.
Having heard the Senator from New Hampshire speak eloquently on these
issues, I look forward to her remarks. When I came to the floor, I said
the key to successful tech legislation for the last 15 years has been
two principles: a voluntary approach rather than a coercive approach
and nondiscrimination rather than discrimination. The Senator from New
Hampshire and I are from States where this bill brings those policies--
coercion and discrimination--back in very stark terms that will be
injurious to the citizens we represent and harm the cause of innovation
across the country.
I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for all her contributions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I couldn't say it any more eloquently
than my friend from Oregon whose small businesses are facing the same
kind of discrimination our small businesses in New Hampshire are
facing.
I came straight from the airport--my flight was delayed; so I wasn't
here to vote no on this legislation that I think has not been thought
through carefully because, as the Senator from Oregon points out, it is
going to affect innovation and the ability to use the Internet in a way
that I think most of this should be used. It is going to set up a whole
new set of rules that are very difficult for our businesses in New
Hampshire and Oregon to comply with. I think it is not the best way for
us to go about taxation and doing it in a fair way. Sadly, as a result
of this legislation, if it passes, as the Senator pointed out, we are
going to see a whole different set of rules for one set of businesses
than for another and that just isn't right.
So I plan to come down to the floor and speak at greater length about
this tomorrow, but I wanted to come this afternoon, when I heard the
Senator was speaking as I came from the airport, to join the Senator in
opposition to the legislation and point out that I certainly would have
voted no and intend to continue to do everything I can to try to
address what I think is a very unfair way to deal with taxation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New
Hampshire for her contribution.
Obviously, the vote this afternoon didn't go our way. My hope is that
as Senators from both political parties have a chance over the next few
days to lay out the consequences of the two principles we have been
talking about--staying away from coercion and staying away from
discrimination--by the time the Senate has completed debate and votes,
we can come up with a proposal that will not set back the cause of
innovation in this country.
We both have talked about the fact that the March numbers on jobs
were not where we would like them to be. Particularly distressing is
the number of people who seem to be either dropping out of the
workforce or working part time because they can't find anything full
time. Now we are looking at policies that will make efforts to put
those people back to work even harder.
So I am very appreciative of the fact that the Senator was able to
come to the floor; because what I tried to do over the last 20 minutes
or half an hour is outline what has worked in technology policy for the
last 15 years. It has been nondiscrimination and noncoercion. This bill
repudiates both of those. My hope is the Senator and I and other
Senators on both sides of the aisle can find a way to change this
legislation so as to at least not go backward with respect to those
values that have been so key to the growth of jobs in the technology
sector. To have the Senator here is so helpful, and I am very
appreciative.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my friend
from Oregon to try and amend this legislation to address some of the
concerns that we, along with a number of other members of this body,
share. It should be an interesting week.
Mr. WYDEN. A good note to close on.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I address the
Senate as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Veterans Claims Backlog
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, next month, Americans across the country
will gather on Memorial Day to remember the sacrifices made by
generations of men and women in service to
[[Page S2839]]
our country and to preserve our freedoms.
There is no group of Americans I hold in higher regard than our
Nation's veterans. Their service and sacrifice have allowed us to live
in the strongest, freest, and greatest country in the world. We should,
in the Senate, utilize their service as our role models.
America's veterans have fought tyrants and terrorist to keep our
country safe and secure. Yet when they return home from war, they have
to continue to fight many battles.
Veterans are struggling to find a job. The unemployment rate for the
post-September 11 veteran remains well above the national average of 10
percent.
Some veterans continue to face difficulties accessing quality health
care services, especially those as in my State where there are rural
areas and long distances to travel for the care they need, and many
veterans must wait long periods of time for their benefit claims to be
processed by the Federal Government, which is what I would like to
highlight today.
Honoring those who served our country certainly means more than
paying tribute to them on Memorial Day. It means keeping our promises.
We owe our Nation's veterans the absolute best--the best health care,
the best educational opportunities, the best support possible to help
them continue to have successful lives after their service to our
country. But all too often, veterans tell me they had to wait months--
and in some cases years--for their benefits to be processed. This is
simply unacceptable.
I served on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for 14 years. I now
serve on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Making an improvement
in the quality of life for our Nation's veterans is one of my top
priorities, and I want to continue to raise the concerns that are
raised to me until progress is made.
In January of this year, the VA outlined a strategic plan to reduce
their enormous claims backlog. According to this new plan, they
estimate they will resolve around 1.9 million claims in 2015, which is
an ambitious goal because that would be roughly an 80-percent increase
in the productivity over the 2012 level.
I certainly appreciate Secretary Shinseki's commitment to eliminating
the backlog of claims and his initiatives to transform the claims
process, but there is evidence against the VA's assertion that the
claims backlog will be remedied by 2015.
In the 2010, the VA projected that by this year--2013--it would take
160 days per claim to reach a decision. But in the first quarter of
this fiscal year, it actually took more than 270 days per claim. It
seems the numbers are, once again, continuing to be headed in the wrong
direction.
In fact, the number of claims considered backlogged--or have been
pending for more than 125 days--grew from fewer than 150,000 in 2009 to
600,000 in March of this year. In total, about 70 percent of the
currently pending claims are considered backlogged.
The Presiding Officer has probably heard the saying that past
performance is a good indicator of future performance. If this pattern
continues, my fear is--and reality suggests--this problem only gets
worse.
As we draw down in Afghanistan and the Armed Services reduce their
force structure, the number of service members who will rely upon the
VA will increase significantly. If the VA is not able to adequately
handle claims now, how will the process work when even more veterans
claims are being submitted?
As recently as September of last year, the inspector general of the
VA found that the VA had not yet fully tested their new system, which
is supposed to help them process these claims more efficiently. At that
point, the new system could not even process a claim from the beginning
of the end of the rating process.
I met recently with Kansas veterans who were here in Washington, DC,
as part of national veterans service organization--the American Legion,
the Disabled Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars--and
their No. 1 concern is the unreasonable amount of time it takes for
benefits claims to be processed.
Oftentimes the conversations I have are with folks who have an urgent
need related to their home or health care, but they are stuck waiting
on the VA to get back to them. I know my colleagues in the Senate
experience the same kind of stories. These are real individuals, with
real needs, whose lives are impacted when their benefits claims go
unresolved day after day.
A step in the right direction was announced this last Friday from the
Department of Veterans Affairs: The VA is finally responding to our
concerns about claim backlogs and expediting the process for claims
that have been held for more than 1 year.
It is absurd a veteran would have been waiting for 1 year or more to
have claims processed, and I am pleased to see the VA is taking action
and I am glad the message is being heard. I hope it has success.
Nonetheless, we certainly know that challenges remain, and it is
important to me that the VA get to the bottom of this issue and come up
with a solution to improve the claims process and eliminate this
backlog in a timely manner.
The government is not the only industry that has to process an
enormous volume of benefit claims. Large insurance companies process
claims successfully every day, so the VA should consult with the
private sector and learn from their experiences a way to process
claims. The VA does not need to waste more time and money recreating
the wheel when solutions may be ever present in the private sector and
within the agency among those who service claims.
Until then, Congress should continue to hold the VA accountable as to
how they will resolve this problem in a real way, with real results for
our veterans.
We must never forget that our country has a responsibility to its
veterans. The brave men and women who have put their lives on the line
to defend our country deserve our respect and that means receiving the
benefits they have earned in a timely manner.
Especially at a time when more and more troops are transitioning out
of the military, and the needs of aging veterans are increasing, I am
committed to keeping our promise to those who have served our country.
Remembering Don Concannon
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I also wish to speak this evening about a
Kansan who recently died and pay tribute to his life. My tribute this
evening is to Don Concannon. Don Concannon of Hugoton, KS, is an
example of a life I admire and respect so much. He exemplifies so much
the folks from my home State of Kansas. It is a tribute to the folks at
home who get so involved in their local communities. They volunteer at
school. They serve on their church board. They get involved in public
service. Kansans are always looking for ways to improve the lives of
those around them, their friends and neighbors and people they do not
even know.
One of those Kansans is our former Republican Party State chairman,
Don Concannon. We have lost a great man, a strong advocate and a
dedicated public servant when Don recently passed away.
Don grew up on a farm in southwest Kansas and graduated from Garden
City High School in 1945. Early on in life, Don began serving our
country when he joined the U.S. Navy and fought in the South Pacific
during WWII.
After the war, Don graduated from Washburn Law School in 1952 and
moved to Hugoton to practice law. It didn't take long for him to get
involved in his new community because one month after his arrival, Don
was elected Stevens County Attorney and went on to serve the county for
four years in that role.
That same year, Don married Patricia June Davis and spent the next 49
years by her side before her passing in 2001. Don later re-married his
wife of the past ten years, Sharon Collins.
As a young man, Don became interested in politics and at the age of
32, Don was elected Chairman of the Kansas Young Republican Federation.
The following year, Don served as Chairman of the Kansas Presidential
Electors for the presidential election between John F. Kennedy and
Richard Nixon. Then, from 1968-1970, Don served as the Chair of the
Kansas Republican Party. His zeal for politics never faded and kept him
involved for many
[[Page S2840]]
years--chairing committees in support of his favorite candidates. He
even put his name on the ballot one year for Governor but fell short by
just 530 votes in the primary.
As a long-time Kansas resident, Don was well known and respected by
many throughout our state, but especially in Southwest Kansas.
Don was a strong advocate for rural Kansas and the special way of
life we enjoy in small communities across our great State. Through his
service on several committees focused on the future of rural Kansas,
Don helped make certain the next generation can return to the towns and
communities they call home.
From his participation in Kansas politics to his public service
career, Don was always looking for ways to serve his fellow Kansans and
improve their lives. In recognition of that service, Don was awarded a
lifetime achievement award by Washburn Law School in 2010.
His family and friends described him as someone whose generosity,
enthusiasm, and overall optimism towards life touched the lives of so
many. It has been said that Don had the character of ``one in a
million,'' and that he did not ``just participate in life, but made
life happen.'' Don had the unique ability to connect with just about
anyone, but he was especially revered by his family and friends who
looked up to him in many ways. Don lived each day to its fullest and
his commitment to his fellow man serves as an inspiration to us all.
I extend my heartfelt sympathies to his wife, Sharon, his son, Craig,
his daughter, Debra, and his many grandchildren. I know they loved him
dearly and will undoubtedly miss him. I ask my colleagues and all
Kansans to remember the Concannon family in your thoughts and prayers
in the days ahead. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
____________________