[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 58 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2985-S2991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 743, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 743) to restore States' sovereign rights to
enforce State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Enzi) amendment No. 741, of a perfecting nature.
Durbin amendment No. 745 (to amendment No. 741), to change
the enactment date.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, 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. DURBIN. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending on the floor is S. 743. This is a
bill which, in its simplest terms, will allow the States to ask
Internet retailers, when they sell in the State, to collect sales tax.
Currently, every State requires consumers to pay the sales tax, but it
is not collected at the point of purchase. So this legislation will
respond to a 20-year-old Supreme Court decision that said to Congress:
You have to write a law to do this. This is the law.
Senator Enzi and I, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, as well as Senator Lamar
Alexander, we have all worked together on this legislation on a
bipartisan basis.
This measure was before the Senate last week. It is not a long bill;
it is 11 pages. It is certainly within the grasp of any Senator to
secure and read it and understand it. It is very straightforward.
We have had efforts made on the Senate floor to delay consideration
of this measure. We have taken three votes on it over the past month or
so. The first
[[Page S2986]]
vote under the budget resolution was a generic vote: Do you support the
idea or not? Seventy-five Senators voted in the affirmative--a dramatic
commitment from the Democratic side and a majority commitment from the
Republican side to this measure. We then faced a vote on cloture--in
other words, closing down the debate--on the motion to proceed. We had
that vote on Monday. Seventy-four Senators voted to proceed. Yesterday,
on the actual motion to proceed: 75 Senators. So this is clearly an
issue where a substantial majority of the Senate believes we should
move forward and pass this legislation.
We have invited our colleagues--Senator Enzi and I have--if they have
amendments, to file their amendments. They have had 6 days--6 days--to
prepare the amendments and file them. The deadline is an hour and a
half from now for filing amendments. So far we have received 31
amendments.
We sat down last night and said: Let's pick a good number of these
amendments. Call them. Let's debate them. Let's vote on them. Let's act
like the Senate. Let's see how that works.
We started to do that. We came up with a list. Included in that list
are amendments being offered by people we know are going to vote
against this bill, so they are not friendly amendments. They are
adversarial amendments. But that is all right. Isn't that what we are
here for--debate it out; express your point of view; we will express
ours; let's vote. I think that is fair. No one can criticize us for not
being open to that. We are not trying to fix the outcome. We are ready
to bring this to full debate. But when we contacted the Senators who
are opposed to the bill and said, call your amendments, they said, we
are not ready.
I wish those Senators who said they were not ready could meet the
Senators we run into in the hall who say, when is this going to end,
when can I go home, because the two of them need to get in
conversation. We want to do this in a timely, thoughtful way because it
is a critically important issue. But we cannot do it unless our
colleagues will come to the floor of the Senate and offer their
amendments.
Yesterday we had one amendment we thought was simple and easy. It is
an amendment that said: We will not impose across America a tax for you
to use the Internet--the Internet Freedom Act it is called. It is
bipartisan. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, a Democrat, and Senator
Blunt of Missouri, a Republican, came together and offered to extend
the current policy of the United States on Internet freedom.
Senator Enzi and I looked at that and said: We can put that in this
bill. That is something with which we agree. We are not imposing any
new taxes in this bill--none. So that is certainly a statement of
policy with which we would agree.
We brought this to the floor, and a Senator from Oregon came and
objected to considering that amendment yesterday. So yesterday, no
amendments. Now we are told that as to any amendments we bring to the
floor today, there will be more objections.
I do not think this makes the Senate look very good. I do not think
this is in the best interests of this institution nor our government.
We were elected to roll up our sleeves and go to work and address the
problems facing this country. We understand that with 100 people there
will be differences of opinion. We are supposed to engage in civil
debate on the floor and then vote. But to lunge from one filibuster to
the next and have Members coming to the floor and objecting to
amendments puts us in a terrible position.
I have served in the minority, as Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi
do at this point. The one thing you really want in the minority is a
chance to offer an amendment, to express your point of view, even if
you lose. Now we are offering that opportunity, and unfortunately there
is a resistance to it. Well, we are going to try it. We are going to
test it. If the people who are going to continue to try to block any
debate on this bill want to come forward, I hope they will face
questions from colleagues as to what their intent is.
Ultimately, we will finish this bill before we go home. If it means
staying through the weekend--if that satisfies some Members--we will do
it. But it is a terrible waste of opportunity. We have gone 2 straight
days with no votes on amendments. And Senators Enzi, Alexander,
Heitkamp and I believe it is time for the Senate to be the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 3 times Senators have voted, either
with 74 or 75 votes, in favor of this legislation--a majority of
Democratic Senators and a majority of Republican Senators. On Monday we
were ready for amendments, but the small group of Senators who oppose
it objected. On Tuesday we asked to have time given back so we could
begin amendments. There was an objection. On Wednesday the Senator from
Arkansas asked for a 10-year moratorium on Internet taxes, and there
was an objection. And we are ready today, as we will see.
Sometimes we Republicans feel as though Democrats keep us from
offering amendments. Whether that is ever true, this is different. In
this case, Democrats and Republicans--a small group--are blocking the
majority of us, Democrats and Republicans, who want to go forward with
the bill and who have been ready to consider amendments since Monday.
We respect the points of view of those 24 or 25 Senators who disagree
with us, but with 3 votes of 74, 75 votes, can we not have our
amendments, bring this to a conclusion, send it to the House of
Representatives, and let it go through the process it needs to go
through?
So this is different. This is both sides--a small group--blocking
amendments the large majority on each side wants to move forward with.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 771,
offered on behalf of myself and Senator King, and I would ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending
amendment?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am only doing it, I would advise my
colleagues--who I know feel strongly about it--Chairman Baucus wanted
to be able to address this issue. That is the purpose of my
reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me express my frustration and dismay
over the objection that has been lodged against considering a very
reasonable amendment to this bill.
This is a bipartisan amendment. It is offered by the Independent
Senator from Maine, Mr. King, and me. It has widespread support. It is
a very reasonable amendment that simply gives businesses more time to
comply with the provisions of this bill. It is consistent with the
purpose of this bill and does not undermine it in any way. It simply
recognizes that 90 days is simply too short a period of time for
implementation of the software and other changes that would be required
under this legislation.
I think there is, however, a broader issue. This is a bipartisan
bill--a bill that I am a cosponsor of, a bill that has widespread
support, a bill that the Governor of Maine strongly supports because of
the revenue it would bring in that is now lost to the State even though
it is owed to the State.
It is a bill that has widespread support among Main Street retailers
who see customers come into their stores, take up the time of their
clerks, and then whip out an iPhone to order the exact same merchandise
online solely for the purpose of evading the sales tax that is due on
the item.
So this bill is a matter of fairness. It imposes no new taxes. In
fact, there is a prohibition on taxing the Internet. As Senator
Alexander has pointed out and Senator Durbin has said--and Senator
Enzi, who has worked so many years on this bill--this bill has
widespread, bipartisan support.
Here we are stymied by a small group of Members on both sides of the
aisle
[[Page S2987]]
who will not even allow us to debate and consider a bipartisan
amendment that simply delays the effective date of this bill by a year
to allow businesses more time to make the software changes they need to
make in order to ensure they are in full compliance with the bill.
We have reached a very disappointing and unsatisfactory result if
that is where we are. If there is opposition to our amendment, I am
sure the opponents would have every opportunity to speak against our
amendment and to vote against our amendment. But to not allow our
amendment to be considered, which is completely relevant to this bill,
an amendment that simply alters the date of implementation, is beyond
my comprehension. I do not understand it. I think it is wrong. I think
it is what frustrates the American people. It is an example of the kind
of gridlock that is very frustrating to the American public.
The only good thing I can say about this gridlock is it is bipartisan
in this case. But that is a very small comfort indeed. So, again, all
our amendment would have done, had we been allowed to consider it, is
put a 1-year delay in the final implementation and also say
implementation could not begin during the retailers' busiest time of
the year; that is, the holiday season.
This was intended to provide adequate lead time for retailers to
undertake the complex steps that may be needed: the software changes,
the training, et cetera. Retailers are going to have to begin early
anyway, but with this 1-year delay we know they will be prepared to
fully implement the Marketplace Fairness Act.
Again, it is very disappointing to me that this commonsense amendment
that is designed to improve the underlying bill cannot be considered at
this time. I have been very pleased to work with my colleague from
Maine, Senator King, on this amendment. He may have some comments as
well. I also wish to thank the sponsors of the bill for working very
hard with us on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the comments
from the senior Senator from Maine on this amendment. I consider it
virtually a technical amendment. It simply changes the implementation
date under the bill so that companies will have adequate time to be
sure they integrate the software supplied by the States into their
systems and also integrate the definition of which items in their
inventory are covered and not covered according to different
definitions across the country.
As we know, the software is to be supplied by the States. This is
simply, as I say, a change in the implementation date in order to
ensure that our online retailers are able to serve their customers
adequately and without any interruption of service or otherwise have
problems.
I too am puzzled by what is going on here. When I came to Washington
in January, I knew in many cases the Senate had to get 60 votes in
order to move forward with legislation under rule XXII. This is a piece
of legislation that has actually had three votes so far. Each one has
been between 70 and 75 votes. If we cannot do anything with a three-
quarters majority, then I think the American people are going to say:
What gives? Nothing is going to happen even on a piece of legislation
that gets over 70 votes on three consecutive times.
I have listened to the debate. I have listened to the arguments from
the Senators from three of the four States. I do think it is
interesting--there are four States in this country that do not have
sales taxes. Three of the four are strenuously objecting to this bill;
one of them is not. In fact, one of the Senators from the State of
Delaware indicated that he believed this could be an advantage to his
State because people would come to Delaware rather than buy something
online and avoid the sales tax in a neighboring State.
There is nothing in this bill that will compel the citizens of Oregon
or Montana or New Hampshire to pay a sales tax. Something has been
argued that this is somehow coercive on companies in those States to
collect the sales tax. I would respond by saying if they do not want to
collect the sales tax, they do not have to sell into those States that
have a sales tax. There is no coercion. They are voluntarily marketing
into Maine or Vermont or Texas or wherever there is a sales tax. If
they want to avoid the strictures of this bill, they can do so
voluntarily.
To me, this makes total common sense. I will conclude with a story
that was in our Portland newspaper just this week with regard to this
bill of a real-life company that I, in fact, shop at, Johnson Sporting
Goods.
The proprietress was talking about people coming into her store,
looking at items, feeling them, trying them on, deciding if they liked
them, and then walking out and buying the wetsuit or the scuba
equipment or whatever it was online. She said: We have become a
showroom for Internet marketers. The problem is if this keeps up, we
are not going to be here anymore.
It is just fundamentally unfair to our retail community in our towns,
which make up the backbone of the commercial district in every town in
America, that they are being put at a disadvantage, a 5- or 6- or 7- or
whatever percent it is disadvantage with regard to the sale of
products.
I, frankly, am puzzled. I just do not understand the vehemence of the
opposition from the nonsales-tax States. I guess in those States one
cannot even utter the words ``sales tax,'' let alone do something that
will not burden their citizens in any way, shape, or form except for
the companies that will collect a sales tax under the software that is
provided by the States. So I do not understand why we cannot move
forward with these amendments.
We are here, I thought, to do the Nation's business. I think we
should do so. So I rise to support the amendment. I hope we can move to
the consideration of the amendment and other amendments that will come
forward and move this bill through the process.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by
the Senators from Maine. I think it makes a lot of sense. It is
symbolic too. Here we have a bipartisan amendment, we have a Republican
Senator and an Independent Senator. The Independent Senator is a former
Governor, as I once was.
The reason I support the amendment is because it gives more time for
anybody who might be affected by this amendment to adjust to it. That
is never a bad idea--almost never a bad idea in the Senate.
It gets us to our goal a few months later than we had thought. It
makes sure those who might be affected can adjust. Of course, many
people who call my office are surprised to learn that it does not
affect anyone unless they have revenues of more than $1 million a year.
So about 99 percent of people who sell things online or in catalogs are
not affected.
Of course, it does not affect Internet taxes; we have a law against
Internet taxes. In fact, another bipartisan amendment by the Senator
from Arkansas and the Senator from Missouri was to extend the 10-year
moratorium on Internet taxes. That was objected to.
The Collins-King amendment is imminently reasonable. I think it
strengthens the bill. It is offered in a good spirit. Some may wish to
go faster, but I think it is sensible and reasonable. I fully support
it.
I would reiterate that we were ready to accept amendments on Monday,
but there was an objection--not a partisan objection but by Democrats
and Republicans, a small number.
We were ready on Tuesday to go ahead with amendments, but there was
an objection, a bipartisan objection to going forward. We were ready on
Wednesday with a bipartisan proposal to put on the 10-year extension of
the Internet tax, but there was an objection.
This is like--I have used this before, but this is like joining the
Grand Old Opry and not being allowed to sing. This is what we are
supposed to do. We are supposed to bring up these bills, consider
reasonable amendments, and vote on them.
We are at noon on Thursday. We have not been allowed to do what we
could have finished on Tuesday. So I greatly respect the Senators on
the other side. I know their feelings; we have strong feelings too. As
a former Governor, I do not think it is any of Washington's
[[Page S2988]]
business to continue to keep us from making decisions about our own
taxes and tax structures. Some people say they do not trust the States.
Most of the people in my State do not trust Washington to make
decisions about spending. We do a heck of a lot better job of making
decisions about taxes and spending and collections than people do here.
So we pretty well made up our minds. Three times now we have had 74,
75 votes for this bill. We are ready to proceed. We have several
amendments that have been filed, some by those who oppose the bill.
That is fine. Bring them up. Let's vote on them. They may make good
sense, just like this amendment makes good sense.
So I thank the Senators from Maine for being constructive, for making
a commonsense proposal to the bill. I support it. I hope that very soon
we can debate it and vote on it and finish this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I objected to the last amendment for a
very simple reason. The author of the amendment is making my case. This
amendment makes my case. What is my case? My case is this bill should
go to committee. It has so many problems, unthought-through, unintended
consequences. This amendment recognizes that. This amendment says
delay; delay for a year. Why delay? Because there are so many problems,
because there are so many problems.
The way to solve the problem is for us to deal with the problem in
committee. That is the solution. I have made that point many times,
many different places: the floor of the Senate, different private
meetings. Finally, people are starting to realize all of their problems
with this bill. Slowly they are starting to read it. Slowly they are
starting to think about it. Slowly it is starting to sink in: Oh, my
gosh, I did not think of that. Oh, that problem too affects businesses,
not just businesses in nonsales-tax States, businesses across the
country, all cross the country.
This amendment makes my case. This amendment seeking a 1-year delay
makes my case that there must be problems; we have to delay this bill.
That is the basic reason I think we should not pass this bill. We
should send it to the committee.
I pledge to Members, my colleagues, my friends, the Finance
Committee, which I chair, will hold a markup on this bill in the next
work period. I made that pledge. I made that pledge. We can work on all
of the problems this bill creates and solve them the best we can during
the markup.
I have heard no good reason we should not go to the committee. This
bill was placed straight on the floor calendar, no committee
consideration, none whatsoever--none. The Committee of jurisdiction had
no opportunity to look at this bill, none. I think it should,
especially when I make a pledge that we will mark it up in the next
work period after this next recess.
What reasons have I heard why we should not do that? I have heard
none whatsoever.
All the reasons I have heard are: Well, gee, Senator, we asked to do
this a while ago, several months ago. That is no answer. I say now we
will do it. I, for the life of me, can't understand why we don't solve
this in the right forum. The right forum is the committee of
jurisdiction. We can't do this on the Senate floor without hearings,
without consideration.
Senators who have been here a couple of years know the good
legislation we have passed around here is legislation from the
committee, where staffs go over all the different amendments and they
work things out. The Senators work things out, and they try to find
compromises, solutions, not for the first time on the floor when the
Senators make speeches. They don't think and look for solutions on the
floor of the Senate. They just make speeches.
I am suggesting the good place we don't make speeches is in the
committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee, where we can work out
some of these problems. That is the reason I have been objecting and
will continue to object. This is a travesty, the way this bill is being
considered in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I feel compelled to respond to the
comments of my good friend and colleague from Montana. First, let me
say I am sorry to learn of his decision to leave the Senate, to retire
from the Senate, because I have enjoyed working with him over the
years.
I do want to make several points. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, who
came to the Senate the same year I did in 1997, has been talking about
this bill for at least a decade. He has introduced it many times
before. There has been ample opportunity for there to be consideration
by the committee, and the committee chose not to consider his bill.
This is not a new concept in any way. It has been talked about and
debated at length over the past decade.
Moreover, I would note the amendment I have offered, along with my
colleague from Maine, does not in any way change the basic thrust of
this legislation. In fact, both Senator King and I are cosponsors of
the underlying bill.
If this bill were so problematic for retailers across the country,
why would it have the support of so many retailers across the country?
Why would it have the support of national organizations representing
retailers across the country?
This is not a complicated bill in concept. What it says is if a
retailer is selling into another State, it needs to collect the sales
tax and remit it to that State. That is not a complicated concept.
This issue has been litigated before the Supreme Court, another
indication it is not a new concept, that it has been carefully
considered. The idea that somehow this bill has sprung out of nowhere
without proper consideration is not supported by its long history.
In fact, during the budget resolution when we voted on this measure
and it received such a strong vote--I think it was something like 70 to
75 votes--I went over to Mike Enzi and congratulated him because he
finally had gotten a preliminary vote on legislation he had been
working on for literally more than a decade.
I don't think this is a complicated concept. It is not creating a new
tax; it is not imposing a new tax; it is not taxing the Internet. All
it is doing is making sure States that have sales taxes receive the
revenue they are owed. That is not a complicated concept.
Is it going to require retailers to make changes in their software,
particularly large retailers that are selling all over the country?
Keep in mind, this bill exempts small retailers. It exempts those with
sales of under a million dollars, so they are not affected at all. Is
it going to require some changes to be made in software and training by
large retailers? Yes, it is. That is why we have offered this
commonsense amendment to improve but not change the underlying bill
that says rather than giving 90 days for businesses to comply with the
sale, let's give them a year so they can fully get the software changes
made and installed, their staff trained, and ensure full, complete, and
accurate compliance. That is all the Collins-King amendment does. It
does not in any way change the thrust of this bill or the underlying
provisions of this bill. It simply allows more time for compliance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, first let me join the Senator from
Maine in expressing to the Senator from Montana my regret that he is
retiring. He has had a long and distinguished career here, and I have
enjoyed working with him and look forward to working with him the rest
of this year and next year. He has a history of independent thinking
and working across party lines, which is valuable in the Senate.
On the point the Senator from Maine made--and I see the Senator from
Montana may want to say something, so I will be brief. The bill as
proposed, the Marketplace Fairness Act, the pending act, has a 6-month
implementation period. This would add 6 months to that so there would
be a total of a year for implementation of the bill. This is a
reasonable period of time.
As far as the bill going to Finance Committee, it has been in the
Finance Committee. Nothing would have pleased the sponsor of the bill
more than for the chairman and other members of the committee to bring
the bill up, mark it up, and send it to the floor, but they didn't do
that.
[[Page S2989]]
As Senator Collins said, Senator Enzi has been introducing different
bills for the last decade or so. But he introduced this very basic
bill, about 11 or 12 pages, S. 1832, on November 9, 2011. It was
referred to the Finance Committee. In April of 2012 there was a Finance
Committee hearing on State and local tax issues, including the
Marketplace Fairness Act. The Senator from Montana referred to that in
his remarks the other day, so there was some other hearing on this very
bill in April of 2012. That is a year ago.
Then the Senate Commerce Committee in August held a full hearing on
this bill involving many Senators with a lot of testimony, and I was
there. It is certainly arguable that the Commerce Committee is at least
as involved in this issue as the Finance Committee, because while the
Parliamentarian has sent it to the Finance Committee, it has nothing to
do with the Tax Code, zero. In any event, that is where it has been.
In this Congress, the Marketplace Fairness Act was introduced, this
very 11-page bill, in the second month of this year and referred to the
Finance Committee. Sixteen Senators have asked for it to be heard and
marked up.
It is certainly the prerogative of the chairman to decide in a busy
committee what he has time to do and not to do. It certainly seemed to
everyone that the Finance Committee had become a dungeon for the bill
and not a place where it was likely to ever come out. I believe that is
exactly why rule XIV is in the Senate rules, to allow the majority
leader to take a bill, bypass the committee, and bring it to the floor.
One that has had this much thought, this much consideration, is an
excellent candidate for that.
The cure for that, it seems to me, is to take these amendments and
work them through, consider them on the floor, debate them, vote them,
and continue the process. Send the bill to the House and let the House
do what it will, have a conference if it is necessary. There are plenty
of opportunities to deal with the bill.
The point is the Finance Committee ought to have the bill. The
Finance Committee has had the bill. The Finance Committee wouldn't act
on the bill. Now we are past the point of sending it back to the
Finance Committee. It is before us. It has votes of 74 or 75 Members of
the Senate. It has the majority of each side. We have been ready ever
since Monday to consider the amendments that have been offered to the
bill by both proponents and opponents of the legislation.
I would hope the Senators who oppose the bill will not object to the
amendments but will participate in the process and allow us to move
forward on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. First, I want to deeply thank my two colleagues who
previously spoke, Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Alexander of
Tennessee, for their nice, warm compliments. I deeply appreciate that.
It means a lot to me because they are both very fine Senators. They are
terrific, as a matter of fact.
A couple of points to clear the record. Senator Collins said Senator
Enzi has been working on this bill for about a decade. That is not
accurate. There was an earlier bill called the streamline act, or
something like that. I have forgotten what it was. It was an attempt at
a compact among States to address this issue. They worked on it and
worked on it and worked on it for close to a decade and then couldn't
agree. I think 24 States agreed, the remaining States did not agree, so
that was the end of that.
This bill is to ram through what other States would not agree to and
to try to find ``the lowest common denominator.'' That is basically
what this bill is, a new bill. This bill has had, to my knowledge, no
vetting at all by any committee in any significant way.
This bill has been referred to the Finance Committee. As the Senator
from Tennessee points out, the Finance Committee has not reported out
the bill. That is true. Frankly, we know one good reason why it hasn't
is because we have been meeting very frequently at the staff levels. My
staff of the Finance Committee with the staffs of those who are
sponsors of the bill are working out different potential and actual
complexities and problems of the bill. There have been a lot of
meetings.
I asked my staff, if someone were to be a fly on the wall, were those
meetings in good faith? They were in good faith to try to find the
answers to the questions. The answer is yes. That is their belief.
There have been a lot of meetings to try to work out some of these
problems which clearly exist.
Obviously one big problem is represented by the amendment that has
been--not offered but consent was asked that it could be offered,
asking for a 9-month delay. I cannot think of any reason for a 9-month
delay except to say, hey, 90 days isn't working. That is just an
example of some of the problems and imperfections of this bill that
could have been addressed in committee, and there are many of them.
But, no, this bill didn't go to committee.
I stand here again and tell the world, the Senate Finance Committee
will report out this bill in the next work period if it has an
opportunity to do so and work out all of these different problems,
rather than trying to willy-nilly ram this through the floor and
preventing changes from being corrected in a good, solid way.
Let me make a prediction. Those who are for ramming this bill on the
floor without letting it go to committee are doing themselves a
disservice, because it makes it more likely this bill will not become
law. If the proponents of this bill want this legislation to become
law, what they should have done is say yes, let's go to the Finance
Committee; the chairman of the Finance Committee has agreed to take it
up; he has agreed publicly to markup, not just a hearing. We have had a
hearing already. We would have a markup on this bill in the next work
period. Then the differences would be worked out and some of the
problems solved. Then the bill comes to the floor, and it will not be
opposed, probably, at least not in the same way it is opposed now. Then
it will more than likely be passed by the other body or at least worked
through the other body. That is the better way to do it.
This way, not going to committee and straight to the floor, reduces
the probability that this bill is going to become law. I, frankly, am
going to object to other amendments because I do not believe the proper
way to do legislation is only on the floor and not go through the
proper development in committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, this is a challenge the States have
been confronted with since 1992--a challenge of trying to get equity
for Main Street businesses. The Supreme Court told us that Congress is
best equipped to make a determination on how we implement something
that would level the playing fields for Main Street businesses under
our notion of what constitutes appropriate regulation and controls of
interstate commerce.
The challenge was passed over 20 years ago to Congress, and the Main
Street businesses have been waiting for 20 years for equity, for
fairness, and for a system that does not discriminate against them.
Only in Washington, DC, could waiting 20 years for a solution we are
debating today be considered ramming something through Congress. Only
in Washington, DC, can a 20-year delay for equity and justice and
fairness in our tax policy be considered too soon for a debate.
This is an 11-page bill. This is a very simple bill. I can attest,
having been here only a short period of time, to the fact that most
Senators have very capable staff. Quite honestly, most Senators have an
enormous capacity to read this 11-page bill, understand it, and
appreciate what the bill says and to make a determination. In fact,
this concept--just in concept--received an overwhelming vote from this
body. This bill, in consideration now in two votes, has received an
overwhelming show of support because colleagues know their Main Street
businesses have waited too long. They know we need to accomplish
something. We need to move forward.
We need to do what is easy because we have so many hard things to do
in the Congress. We have a budget out of control, we have an energy
policy we need to prepare for the future, and we have challenges with
sequestration and
[[Page S2990]]
making sure we are making the right investments in our future. We have
big issues. I would suggest that what we are looking at, albeit a small
issue in this body, is a big issue for Main Street businesses.
We heard from a woman just a couple days ago--a woman named Teresa--
who runs a little pet food store. She has trained all of her people on
what is great nutrition. So when clients or customers come in, she can
talk about the age of their pets, she can talk about what the
nutritional problems are and give them advice and then, she said, only
to watch them walk out the door with that advice and order that product
on the Internet.
One might say that is competition or whatever. But she is not afraid
of competition. Her challenge is that if they buy in her store, the
sales tax her city and State will charge is 9\1/2\ percent. So she is
immediately at a 9\1/2\-percent disadvantage. Yet they use her
expertise.
I would like someone to explain to me how we can't be moved by a
story such as that and to correct the inequity; how we can't be
sophisticated enough as legislators to read an 11-page bill and
understand what it says with all the staffing we have.
I am confident, as we go forward, we are doing what is right. Any
State that doesn't want to participate, any State that doesn't want to
collect remote sales tax in this fashion, either streamlined or under
the alternative process provided in the bill, does not have to pursue
this collection mechanism. They can continue to do what they are doing.
The bill talks about a remote seller who has sales over $1 million.
This young woman said to us, when she was talking about her pet store,
that she also runs a little online business. We asked: How would you
feel? She said: I could only hope for $1 million of online sales. I
would be glad to collect the tax if that was my business. She is a
small businesswoman.
So if we can't bring equity now, then when? We have been waiting 20
years. We have an opportunity to show this country and show those Main
Street businesses, show our friends and neighbors who support the
Little League, who support our school newspapers, who support our
communities, that someone in this body cares. In fact, the majority of
people in this body cares. In fact, a supermajority of this body cares,
and we are listening to you. Maybe, in some small way--in some very
small way--we will have told them Washington is still a place where
people will listen and respond and actually get something done. That is
what we are trying to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from North
Dakota for her comments and her involvement for over 20 years. I feel
like a newcomer, with just the 12 years I have been trying to get this
passed. Wyoming has recognized the need for it and has had the desire
for it. We were one of the first to join the streamlined sales tax
effort, and I think we were joined by a number of our surrounding
States. The purpose of that, of course, was to make it simpler so it
would be easier for people to collect the tax.
I wish to congratulate the Senators from Maine for putting forward
what I consider to be kind of a phase-in part. Of course, there are a
lot of people who would like to have it done a lot faster than that,
but this would allow 1 year for people to get their program up and
running. Part of that time would be taken by the free software that has
to come from the States. It will take them a while to get that
together, although everybody is hearing from eBay a little bit, and
eBay already has one of those sales tax programs. It costs 15 bucks a
month if you want to collect sales tax in the States, so it isn't like
it is something impossible.
I know L.L.Bean is going through a major computer switchover right
now, so they know how difficult that is, and if it were compounded at
the same time by having the sales tax collected, it could create some
difficulties. In checking around, we have gotten the suggestion there
be 1 year allowed before they had to start collecting the taxes.
There is another small provision that says from October 31 through
December 31 there wouldn't be a conversion because that is the
Christmas season. In retail, that is the big season. If they can't
concentrate on their customers at that point in time, they are not
going to make their money. It makes the whole year just in those couple
of months there. So there is an exclusion the program wouldn't go into
effect during that period of time.
So there is this kind of a phase-in for everybody to get everything
ready. I know it is a lot more time than what States would like to
have. They would like to begin collecting the taxes in 90 days, if they
were able to get their program in place in 90 days. But we think that
is reasonable. They brought that to the floor, but it was objected to
even getting to debate it. So we don't get to vote on that.
Around here a lot of times people say: It is a filibuster if you
don't get to, and if there is cloture, then everybody ought to vote
against cloture until everybody gets their amendments. How can you do
your amendments if one person can object--and has. I think there would
probably be three or four who would object, maybe six or eight who
would object. But it is hard to do the amendments, and that should
definitely not be the reason for anybody to vote against final cloture
on this bill and get it enacted. Hopefully, we can still get some
amendments through the process. Anything that is germane after cloture
can still be voted on.
I know there are a lot of proposals out there. Some of those
proposals, of course, deal with something other than what would be
germane to this bill. There would be major changes in the tax structure
in other ways. We have tried to keep this to an 11-page bill. We tried
to keep it simple, keep it to one topic. It is something anybody can
read and understand. In fact, I don't remember a bill that has had
language quite as clear.
I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for all his
concentration. He looked at the 80-plus page bill we had, which had a
lot more stuff in it, and said why don't we make this into a States
rights bill. Once we took that approach to it, it made all the language
much simpler. We just needed some basics for them to have to
participate, and so that is why it is an 11-page bill. We will not see
an 11-page bill come through here very often. I would guess some of the
amendments being proposed--that have nothing to do with the collection
of sales tax--are probably more extensive in pages than what this bill
is.
We are hoping people will stick to germane and relevant--or at least
relevant; that is a little broader than germane, and we can do some
amendments.
But if there is going to be an objection--and I was just in a meeting
where I was assured this is going to happen, and there is going to be
an objection every time, no matter what the amendment is--I am very
disappointed in that.
I do want to point out there is a small seller exemption. If you are
a retailer and you do less than $1 million of sales online during a
year, you don't come under this bill. You don't do anything different
than what you are doing right now. For a lot of small businesses, $1
million would be a lot of money. I have heard some proposals that maybe
we go to $10 million or $20 million. That affects some big retailers
that don't want to do it. But to small retailers, $1 million is a lot
of sales when it is just the ones that are done online. We are not
talking about their total sales--what they do in their stores. We are
just talking about the ones where they put up their Web site and they
get orders and they ship out those orders. If that exceeds $1 million,
the next year they would have to start collecting it.
So not only, with the Collins amendment, would there be 1 year built
into the time before they would have to start doing it, there would
also be another year before they would hit the $1 million, and if they
do not hit the $1 million, then they have another year and another year
and another year until they do. Of course, having been a small
businessman, I am pulling for all of them to exceed $1 million.
Most small businesses I know would be so tickled to hit $1 million
they would think maybe this wouldn't be such a bad deal. This is
definitely giving some emphasis to online sales. It is much easier now
to get a Web site. In
[[Page S2991]]
fact, the Small Business Administration has been going from State to
State to State and providing people who will do free Web sites for
people who attend a seminar on how to do online sales. I commend the
Small Business Administration for doing that. I think it has helped a
number of businesses that haven't been able to expand beyond the few
thousand dollars they are selling in their own stores to increase their
sales. We hope everybody gets to exceed $1 million.
There is another part of that $1 million that is kind of interesting.
If you are a nursery--and we heard an example of a nursery last night--
and you are doing big sales, the chances are pretty good some of those
big sales are to other nurseries. If a product is sold to somebody else
to be resold, there isn't a sales tax. So that wouldn't count in the $1
million.
We did hear an example during the press conference of a contractor in
a State and the other contractor got all his stuff online and from out
of State and on a $150,000 contract was able to undercut him by 10
percent. It was just a $150,000 project--a category that small
businessmen specialize in--but he was beat out by an out-of-State
person who didn't pay sales tax on the products they were bringing into
the State and using in construction.
So we do have a small seller exemption. There is also simplification
in the bill, and I would be happy to go through that. We haven't had
any suggestions for more simplification, at least from those who
understand what the simplification is. One of the reasons that is
fairly simple now is because computers have come a long way. I don't
know how many people here have purchased something online, but when you
do, you put in your address where you want something shipped, and when
you go over to see what the bill is going to be, not only will there be
the price of the product, but there will be a sales tax. In a number of
States, people have volunteered to collect it, and for the number of
people who have volunteered to collect it, we really appreciate that.
I cannot believe that Senator Collins' request to bring up an
amendment that would allow a phase-in, that would give everybody extra
time, would be objected to, but, as I said, when we checked we found
out that everything is going to be objected to, which will bring us to
a cloture vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I know the Senator from Louisiana is
coming. When he comes, I will be through.
I say to the Senator from Wyoming who just said that apparently there
is an intention to object to any amendment, just to review, we started
Monday.
We could have started amendments Monday if there were no objection,
but there were objections, bipartisan objection.
On Tuesday we said that instead of going the full 30 hours of debate,
let's give the time back and let's start the amendments. Bipartisan
objection.
On Wednesday we brought up the bipartisan proposal of Senator Blunt
and Senator Pryor to extend the moratorium on the Internet tax. There
is already a moratorium on taxing the Internet. You cannot have it.
That is the law. We were going to extend it for 10 years. Objection.
Then today Senator Collins and Senator King say: Instead of
implementing this in 6 months, let's do it in a year. Objection.
If it continues this way--and I say to the Senator from Wyoming, this
is the way I figure the procedure--if there is no consent, always
objection to any amendment from both a few Republicans and a few
Democrats, then we will have a vote on cloture tomorrow. That would be
tomorrow afternoon, I guess--tomorrow morning. Probably for the fourth
time, 74 or 75 of us will vote for the Marketplace Fairness Act. Then
we will stay here until Saturday afternoon for the full 30 hours, and
we will have a vote on the two amendments and final passage. That will
be Saturday afternoon. And probably another 74 or 75 votes for that, I
hope. That is what will happen if a few Democrats and a few Republicans
continue to say: No amendments.
I want to make sure no one on our side of the aisle stands up and
says they, the Democrats, are blocking amendments, because they are
not. Most Democrats and most Republicans want to offer and vote on
amendments. A few Democrats and a few Republicans say no. I believe
that is where we are procedurally, if that persists.
I completely respect the point of view of other Senators. I never
question a Senator's vote. That is his or her prerogative, and it is
their prerogative to keep us here until Saturday afternoon if that is
what they wish to do. But that is not really a very good way for the
Senate to work when we have three-fourths of us, a majority on both
sides of the aisle, who are for something and we are ready to move
through it with amendments and improvements and debates. This is not a
good procedure, but it is procedure.
This is the season for parades in Tennessee. On weekends and Fridays,
I go home. I have a rule of thumb: Walk in parades. I put on my red-
and-black plaid shirt that I walked across Tennessee in. I walked in
the Saint Patrick's Day parade in Erin. I walked in the Mule Day parade
in Columbia--100,000 people there, lots of mules there. I always try to
walk at the front of the Mule Day parade for obvious reasons. And
tomorrow I was looking forward to walking in the parade at the Paris
Fish Fry. But if we continue to object to every amendment to this bill,
I will not get to walk in the Paris Fish Fry tomorrow, but we will pass
the bill on Saturday, and I suspect we will pass it with 74 to 75
votes.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________