[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.

                          ____________________