[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 142 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6126-S6130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to voice my continued support for
the enactment of the Marketplace Fairness Act this year. There have
been a number of editorials and letters and emails and other messages
lately that have left out part of the story and have some of the other
parts of the story wrong. I am not sure the people behind these
messages have read the bill.
Last year the Senate passed this bill with a strong bipartisan vote
of 69 Members. I believe that now is the time to get this issue done. I
have been working on this sales tax fairness issue since joining the
Senate in 1997, because as a former State legislator, mayor and small
business owner, I believe it is important to level the playing field
for all retailers--in-store, catalog, and online--so an outdated rule
for sales tax collection does not adversely impact small business and
Main Street retailers.
In the last century, the Supreme Court challenged us to solve this
problem. We have been working on it. Thanks to a suggestion by Senator
Alexander, we made this bill a States rights bill. The States passed
laws a long time ago that required the collection of sales tax. And
those laws say that if the tax is not collected by the retailer out of
State, it has to be paid directly by the purchaser in state. Most
people do not even know about that requirement, but I do understand in
Wyoming we collect about $1.5 million from people voluntarily realizing
the law and complying with it.
But that is a minority of people. Right now, thousands of local
businesses are forced to do business at a competitive disadvantage
because they have to collect sales and use taxes and remote sellers do
not, which in some States can mean that 5 to 10 percent advantage.
I recently talked with a fellow who had a camera store. A person came
in. He was interested in this $2,000 camera and accessories. So of
course the store owner helped him to figure it all out and gave him
instructions on the camera. Then the guy pulled out his smart phone and
clicks on the bar code of the camera and said he could get it cheaper.
Of course the owner of the store wondered how much cheaper. It happened
to be exactly the amount of sales tax. The small business owner lost
the sale.
I am willing to bet that if the person has a problem with the camera,
he is going to come back to that store and ask for help with it. Those
people who have those small businesses hire locally. It is actually
people from the community who are earning money they spend in the same
community. They are paying property tax. I would be willing to bet that
none of the online companies, unless they are local, are participating
in the community the way those businesses are.
Of course, additionally, sales taxes go directly to State and local
governments, which brings in the needed revenue for maintaining our
schools, fixing our roads, supporting local law enforcement, fire
departments, and emergency management crews. An interesting part of
that is the smaller the town, the more important that is.
In Wyoming the smaller towns rely on their sales tax to provide
police protection and fire protection. People in small towns in Wyoming
are sometimes surprised to find out that sales taxes support these
services, but realize then that they ought to be paying this sales tax.
The smaller the town, the bigger the impact.
If Congress fails to let States collect taxes on remote sales this
year, we are implicitly blessing a situation where States will be
forced to maybe raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to
offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue. Do we want this to
happen?
There is another side to this too; that is, that some of the people,
some of the Governors and legislatures have said: If that passes, we
will reduce another tax because sales tax is a more constant flow of
dollars that we can rely on more than virtually anything else we do.
So now is the time for Congress to complete action on this issue by
enacting the Marketplace Fairness Act this year. Today I want to spend
a few minutes debunking some of the myths and allegations that have
been raised against the bill. First, some opponents argue the bill is
unfairly burdensome to online retailers by forcing them to comply with
the various sales tax rates across the country.
In response, I would first note that the Marketplace Fairness Act
includes a small seller exemption. It is set at $1 million in remote
sales each year. Until they pass that $1 million mark in a given year,
states cannot make them comply with sales tax laws. If they do pass the
million-dollar mark, then the Marketplace Fairness Act requires that
the State provide the sellers with software, free of charge, that can
calculate the sales and use tax due on each transaction at the time the
transaction is completed. It would also file the sales and use tax
returns and be updated to reflect any rate changes.
So all they have to know, to be able to do is, is the purchaser's ZIP
Code. They are going to have to know the ZIP Code if they are sending
something
[[Page S6127]]
somewhere. So it is not that complicated a process. Incidentally, some
of the online companies opposing this bill sell the very same program.
They make it available to a number of providers. So it is already being
used by retailers across the country to accurately collect and remit
State and local sales and use taxes.
In addition, opponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act argue that our
bill violates States rights by setting tax rates. In fact, our bill
does not change State law. It does not require States to do anything.
The bill does not create new taxes or increase existing taxes. It
simply gives the States the ability to collect the taxes owed, to
enforce their own sales and use tax laws.
Our bill is a States rights bill, which is why the National Governors
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities
support the bill. Wyoming passed a law in 1934. It says: If someone
buys something out of State and they do not pay sales tax on it, by the
end of the month they have to fill out a form which they have and
submit the money. Our bill makes it easier for Wyomingites to comply
with this law. Most people don't realize this, but it is much easier if
the person who collects the sales tax is the one who sells the item.
Opponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act also suggest it benefits
big business at the expense of small online retailers. Remember I
mentioned that $1 million exemption if a business sells less than $1
million online? They are not subject to this bill. That is to give
small businesses a chance to grow into big businesses--and we do hope
they do pass that $1 million threshold. In fact a $2 million threshold
would be fine with me.
But the exemption already protects small businesses. Last year a
Small Business Administration study determined that the small seller
exemption included in the Marketplace Fairness Act would exempt 99.96
percent of all sellers from the bill's requirements. So it is just the
big ones that fall into this bill.
Opponents of marketplace fairness suggest it creates a massive new
tax requirement. The truth is the bill that passed the Senate with an
overwhelming bipartisan vote of more than two-thirds of the Senate last
year does not create any new taxes.
Consumers already owe the sales and use taxes on the goods they
purchase if they reside in a State that has a sales tax--whether those
purchases are made over the phone, by mail or by the Internet.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, most consumers are unaware that they are
required to pay the tax when the retailer does not collect it at the
time of the purchase.
Marketplace fairness provides States the authority to reduce the
burden of self-reporting from consumers and allow States to enforce the
existing State and local sales and use tax laws, and it eliminates the
competitive disadvantage for the small retailers in the State. It is an
advantage that is currently enjoyed by the remote retailers at the
expense of those small businesses.
Additionally, the Marketplace Fairness Act does not tax Internet use.
I repeat that it does not tax Internet use. It doesn't even tax
Internet services. For many years I have worked with all the interested
parties to find a mutually agreeable legislative package to enact this
bill.
This Congress, I've worked with Senator Durbin, Senator Alexander,
who as I mentioned inserted the States rights approach to this issue
that reduced the bill from about 35 pages down to about 9 pages, and
Senator Heitkamp, who has been involved in the court case as all of
these e-fairness challenges have progressed.
When the Supreme Court heard this challenge and realized there are
some other things coming along that could greatly distress States if
they don't take some action because of what the courts could do, I
worked together with the three colleagues I mentioned and 26 of our
Senate colleagues to produce a bipartisan bill that helps sellers,
States, and local governments to simplify sales and use tax collection
and administration.
We are working with our House supporters, including House of
Representative Members Steve Womack, Jackie Speier, Peter Welch, and
John Conyers, and have found common ground on this important issue that
is supported by more than 200 groups. I publicly commend all of my
Senate and House colleagues in taking a leadership role in working on
this important policy issue.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the goals of States
rights and a level playing field for all businesses--making sure the
revenue that is owed particularly for small towns makes it to the small
towns--by pushing for the enactment of the Marketplace Fairness Act
this year.
I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Alexander, who has done
an outstanding job on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Enzi has been a leading proponent of the
Marketplace Fairness Act. I congratulate him for his persistence in
recognizing its importance.
I will make three points in support of what he said: No. 1, why
conservatives support it; No. 2, why it is easy to do; that is, to
comply with it; and No. 3 is to ask the basic question, which is: Do
you trust Washington or do you trust your Governor and your State
legislature to decide what your State taxes ought to be? Do you trust
Washington or do you trust people closer to home?
I will begin with why conservatives support it. If I were to ask the
question, what do the following people have in common, and the
following people would be Al Cardenas, the most recent chairman of the
American Conservative Union; the late William F. Buckley; Art Laffer,
who is President Reagan's favorite economist; Governor Mike Pence, the
conservative Governor of Indiana; Governor Gary Herbert; Governor
Robert Bentley; former Governor Mitch Daniels; and former Governor Jeb
Bush, you might say: What do they have in common?
Well, they are Republicans; that is right. They are conservatives;
that is true. But the other thing we could say is they all support the
Marketplace Fairness Act or the principles that underlie it.
Why is that? Because the Marketplace Fairness Act is a 12-page bill
about two words, which are States' rights. If I am the Governor of
Tennessee--which I once was--and I am sitting down there thinking:
Well, we have a State sales tax in Tennessee such as almost every State
has, and the way we collect it is this--let's say I am in my home town
of Marysville, TN, and I want to buy a television set. I can go
downtown to buy it from one of my local stores. They collect the State
sales tax, which in our State, including State and local taxes, is
nearly 10 percent. They send it to the State.
If I go online or into a catalog and order the same television set,
the seller does not collect it. This bill is about allowing the State
of Tennessee to decide whether it wants to require the out-of-state
sellers to do the same thing that instate sellers do, whether it wants
to prefer some distant seller over the local man and woman on Main
Street, the mom-and-pop stores. That is the decision.
Whatever decision they would make, the question is this. Do you think
we should be deciding that for Tennessee? Our Governor doesn't think
so, our Lieutenant Governor doesn't think so, our legislature doesn't
think so. They don't trust Washington to make the decision. They trust
themselves to make that decision.
Ohio doesn't think so. Ohio has already taken a look at this subject
and said: We would prefer to collect our sales tax from everybody who
owes it. Rather than have everybody in Ohio fill out a form every time
they go online to order from a catalog, Ohio wants to require the out-
of-State sellers do the same thing in-State sellers do, and that is to
collect the tax when they sell it. Ohio has said if they do that, they
will lower taxes.
Ohio has already passed a law and says if Congress passes the
Marketplace Fairness Act taxes in Ohio will go down.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record following my remarks a list of conservatives and Republican
Governors who support e-fairness and why they do so.
The other point is how complicated is this for somebody who might
sell online? Well, as Senator Enzi said, it exempts 99 percent of all
out-of-state
[[Page S6128]]
sellers. So if you are selling on eBay today and you are worried about
this bill, the chances are 99 out of 100 it is not you this bill
affects because it has a $1 million exemption.
But even if it did affect you, how hard would it be to comply with
the requirements. It must not be too hard because you could also go on
eBay, I am assured, and you can purchase software from eBay that costs
$15 or $20 and it will do the work for you. In other words, if you are
selling something online and you are selling it to Maryville, TN, they
will put the zip code in and tell you the tax. You can collect it and
remit it to the State government. It is about as easy as what I do
every morning.
I go to my computer, I type in ``Google,'' put my zip code in, and I
put ``weather.'' I want to know it is 24 degrees in Washington, DC,
this morning. It tells me in an instant.
If you are selling online--unless you are selling more than $1
million in out of state sales it doesn't affect you at all. If you need
some help to figure that out, you can get software that figures out the
tax for you.
But remember, all we are asking--we are not even saying that we think
if you sell online or if you sell by catalog that you ought to be made
to collect the tax when you sell. We are just saying we think States
should make the decision about their own tax policy which is consistent
with the 10th Amendment to our Constitution.
That leads me to my last point. The real issue here is two words. You
can make a lot of good conservative reasons why this bill attracted
half the support of Republicans and passed with 69 votes when it was
considered by the Senate, and why it has so much support from Governors
and mayors of all political persuasions across the country. But the
bottom line is all we proposed to do is to let States make decisions
about their own tax policy.
The Supreme Court more than 20 years ago said it was too complicated
to require businesses to collect, but they invited Congress to create a
way that was simple enough to do that. Twenty years has gone by,
software is already available, the Internet is advanced, and so today
it is very easy to do.
There is no reason in the world for Senators to say: You know, I just
flew from Nashville today. It took me an hour. That makes me a lot
smarter than the Governor of Tennessee, so I am going to decide for
Tennessee whether it can collect all the taxes that are already owed. I
am going to say I am going to let the Governor of Tennessee make that
decision. If I were the Governor of Tennessee, I would collect it, and
I might lower the taxes for everybody. I don't think it is fair to say
to shopkeepers in Maryville, TN, that you have to collect the tax and
send it to the State, but to say to some seller in Illinois or some
catalog seller in North Dakota that you don't have to collect the tax,
because that means our local businesses are being dealt with in an
unfair way.
I also don't think Tennesseans appreciate what will happen if we
don't act, because do you know what is going to happen? The Governor is
going to collect the sales tax. How is he going to do it? Well, he is
going to have to start auditing everybody.
If you buy online--which everybody almost does today; just think of
the Christmas season coming up--you would have to write down every
single thing you bought. You would have to put the tax down, and you
would have to send it in--that is the law. That is a very difficult
thing to do and most people don't do it.
So the easy way to do this and the right way to do this is for
Congress to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, which is a 12-page bill
about two words--States rights--and say to Tennessee, Wisconsin or
Wyoming, of course you should make your own decision about how to
collect your taxes. Let them decide, as Ohio decided. They will collect
the State sales tax which is already owed from everybody who owes it.
The collectors of the tax will be anyone who sells into Ohio or
Tennessee or Wisconsin or Wyoming.
That is the fair thing to do. That is the right thing to do. That is
what respects our constitutional federalism and the 10th Amendment to
the Constitution. It shows that we in Washington, DC, aren't so
arrogant to think that we should make those state tax decisions.
I conclude by saying I just had the pleasure of going through a
reelection campaign. A lot of Members, about one-third of the body,
were in an election this year. I was trying to remember this morning if
one single person came up to me in the past 2 years and said: I just
wish you would give Washington more control over how Tennessee collects
its taxes.
I don't think one single person said that to me. But I will guarantee
that about every other person said to me: I wish you would stop
Washington from telling us to do things or decide things that we should
be deciding for ourselves.
That is what this bill is about. This bill empowers every State to
make its own decision about how to collect its taxes--to do what Ohio
did, to do what other Governors have said. We are going to collect it
from everybody who already owes it and, when we do, we are going to
lower everyone's taxes. That would be a very happy result.
We have 2 or 3 weeks left in the session. This Senate has fully
considered this. The bill is in the House of Representatives. I very
much hope that the Speaker and the Members of the House will decide
that it is time to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act and recognize the
principle of States rights in the spirit of the 10th Amendment of our
Constitution.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Conservatives & Republican Governors Support E-Fairness
William F. Buckley, Editor At Large, National Review: ``The
mattress maker in Connecticut is willing to compete with the
company in Massachusetts, but does not like it if out-of-
state businesses are, in practical terms, subsidized; that's
what the non-tax amounts to. Local concerns are complaining
about traffic in mattresses and books and records and
computer equipment which, ordered through the Internet, come
in, so to speak, duty free.'' (William F. Buckley, ``Get That
Internet Tax Right,'' National Review Online, 10/19/01)
Arthur B. Laffer, Wall Street Journal: ``In-state retailers
collect sales taxes at the time of purchase. When residents
purchase from retailers out of state (including over the
Internet) they are supposed to report these purchases and pay
the sales taxes owed--which are typically referred to as a
``use tax.'' As you can imagine, few people do. The result is
to narrow a state's sales-tax base. It also leads to several
inefficiencies that, on net, diminish potential job and
economic growth. Exempting Internet purchases from the sales
tax naturally encourages consumers to buy goods over the Web;
worse, the exemption incentivizes consumers to use in-state
retailers as a showroom before they do so. This increases in-
state retailers' overall costs and reduces their overall
productivity.'' (Arthur B. Laffer, ``Tax Internet Sales,
Stimulate Growth,'' The Wall Street Journal, 4/17/13)
Al Cardenas, former Chairman of the American Conservative
Union (ACU): ``When it comes to sales tax, it is time to
address the area where prejudice is most egregious--our
policy towards Internet sales. At issue is the federal
government exempting some Internet transactions from sales
taxes while requiring the remittance of sales taxes for
identical sales made at brick and mortar locations. It is an
outdated set of policies in today's super information age,
when families every day make decisions to purchase goods and
services online or in person. Moreover, it's unfair, punitive
to some small businesses and corporations and a boon for
others.'' (Al Cardenas, ``The Chief Threat To American
Competitiveness: Our Tax Code,'' National Review Online, 11/
8/11)
Charles Krauthammer: ``The real issue here is the fairness
argument--that if you're an old fashioned store, you have to
have your customers and you pay the sales tax and online you
don't. Which, I mean, you're already at a disadvantage if
you're an old fashioned store: you have to have, you have to
cover rent, you have to cover insurance and all that. So I
think you want to have something that will level the playing
field. You can do it one of two ways. You abolish all sales
taxes for real stores and nobody pays. Or you get the
Internet people to pay the sales tax as well. I think the
second one is the only way to do it, obviously.'' (``Friday
Lightning Round: Internet sales tax bill,'' Fox News Special
Report with Bret Baier, 4/26/13)
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker: ``Since taking office, it
has been my priority, and the priority of a number of members
of the legislature, to provide tax relief to middle class
families, and to foster an environment that promotes job
creation. I want to make clear, should federal Marketplace
legislation become law, my intention would be for any
resulting additional revenue be used to provide individual
income tax relief for Wisconsin's taxpayers.'' (Letter to
Wisconsin Congressional Delegation, 5/15/2013)
[[Page S6129]]
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: Governor Chris
Christie: ``I just want to make clear that I have been
working on this issue in my role on the executive committee
of the National Governors Association because it is an
important issue to all the nation's governors. And I too--
along with governors like Governor Daniels and others--urge
the federal government and the Congress in particular to get
behind Senator Lamar Alexander's legislation to allow states
to be able to make these choices for themselves. And I think
Senator Alexander's legislation would be a great step forward
in that regard. It would give states options to decide how
they want to deal with this and not have to any longer deal
with the federal prohibition on dealing with it. So, it would
allow us to do it in a much more uniform and broader way. So,
I'm with Governor Daniels on this and other Republican
governors--Governor Snyder of Michigan and others who feel
strongly about it. And we've been working on it at the
National Governors Association and I know we will continue to
and hope to get some type of resolution to it by the end of
this year.'' (Press Conference, Governor Chris Christie, 5/
31/12)
Utah Governor Gary Herbert: ``On March 24, 2012, Utah
Governor Gary Herbert signed into law an affiliate nexus bill
that will require certain remote sellers to collect and remit
Utah sales tax, effective July 1, 2012. An out-of-state
seller will be considered to have nexus in Utah if the seller
holds a substantial ownership interest in, or is owned in
whole or in substantial part, by a related seller, and the
seller sells the same or a substantially similar line of
products as the related seller and does so under the same or
a substantially similar business name, or the place of
business of the related seller or an in-state employee of the
related seller is used to advertise, promote, or facilitate
sales by the seller to the purchaser.'' (``Utah Enacts
Affiliate Nexus Bill,'' Sales Tax Institute, 3/24/12)
Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam: ``The National Governors
Association applauds your efforts to level the playing field
between Main Street retailers and online sellers by
introducing S. 1832, the `Marketplace Fairness Act.' This
common sense approach will allow states to collect the taxes
they are owed, help businesses comply with different state
laws, and provide fair competition between retailers that
will benefit consumers.'' (National Governors Association
Letter To Sens. Durbin, Enzi, Tim Johnson And Alexander
Endorsing S. 1832, The Marketplace Fairness Act, 11/28/11)
Indiana Governor Mike Pence: ``I don't think Congress
should be in the business of picking winners and losers.
Inaction by Congress today results in a system today that
does pick winners and losers.'' (House Judiciary Committee,
Hearing On ``Constitutional Limitations On States' Authority
To Collect Sales Taxes In E-Commerce,'' 11/30/11)
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder: `Technology currently exists
to quickly and effectively calculate taxes due on sales and
can be easily be integrated into online retailers'
operations,' wrote Snyder, a onetime venture capitalist and
former executive at the computer company Gateway. `It is time
for Congress to grant states the authority to enforce sales
tax and use laws on all retailers doing business in their
state.' (Bernie Becker, ``Michigan Governor Joins Online
Sales Tax Chorus,'' The Hill, 5/11/12)
Alabama Governor Robert Bentley: ``Alabama's Republican
governor has urged lawmakers from his state to support online
sales tax legislation, adding to the growing roster of GOP
officials who are on board with the idea. Gov. Robert Bentley
told Alabama's two senators and seven House members the
online sales tax bills would improve the state's fiscal
situation, and stressed that the legislation would not create
a new tax. `The bills will give Alabama the authority to
collect sales taxes--as we currently do from local brick-and-
mortar retailers--that are already owed from online
retailers,' Bentley wrote in a letter dated April 19.
`Allowing us to effectively close this sales tax loophole
would help both our state's finances and our state's small
businesses.''' (Bernie Becker, ``Alabama Governor Gets Behind
Online Sales Tax Push,'' The Hill, 4/25/12)
South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard: ``On March 11, South
Dakota enacted S.B. 146, sales tax legislation that requires
out-of-state retailers that sell to in-state residents to
notify their customers of their personal use tax obligation.
Under the law, online sellers are required to provide clear
notice to consumers during the checkout process that a South
Dakota use tax is due.'' (Rosemary Hawkins, ``Sales Tax Bills
Pass In Arkansas And South Dakota,'' American Booksellers
Association, 3/3/11)
Maine Governor Paul LePage: ``Last week, Gov. Paul LePage,
R-Maine, wrote his state's two U.S. senators, Republicans
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, to urge them to back
legislation introduced by Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., Dick
Durbin, D-Ill., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., that would
close a loophole left by a 1992 Supreme Court decision. The
high court ruled that states can't require retailers such as
catalog and now online retailers to collect sales taxes from
customers in states where those companies have no physical
presence. `There's no denying that passing the bill would
give thousands of small Maine businesses a real boost,'
LePage wrote. `Through no fault of their own, federal policy
now gives some out-of-state corporations an unfair advantage
over other Maine retailers.''' (Juliana Gruenwald, ``Tea
Party Governor Is Backing Net Sales Tax Bill,'' National
Journal, 3/20/12)
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval: `` `The only way to
completely resolve this issue is for Congress to enact
legislation that, within a simplified nationwide framework,
grants states the right to require collection by all
sellers,' Sandoval said in a statement.'' (Ed Vogel, ``Gov.
Sandoval Reaches Sales Tax Deal With Amazon,'' Las Vegas
Review-Journal, 4/24/12)
Idaho Governor C.L. ``Butch'' Otter: ``Gov. C.L. `Butch'
Otter backs taxing Internet sales to level the playing field
between virtual businesses and brick-and-mortar
establishments on Idaho's Main Street. Otter made the remarks
to Idaho chamber of commerce leaders meeting in Boise on
Monday.'' (``Idaho Governor Supports Internet Sales Tax,''
The Associated Press, 1/30/12)
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley: `` `And I will tell
you regardless of what happens with Amazon, we want them. I
have told them we want you to do business in this state, but
we want you to do it on a level playing field. They got free
property, they got tax incentives, they got plenty of things.
Don't ask us to give you sales tax relief when we're not
giving it to the book store down the street or we're not
giving it to the other stores on the other side of town, it's
just not a level playing field.''' (Press Conference,
Governor Nikki Haley, 4/28/11)
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad Supports Federal E-Fairness
Legislation: ``Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa this week became
the latest in a string of top Republican state officials to
back federal legislation giving states more freedom to
collect online sales taxes. Branstad's letter of support,
obtained exclusively by The Hill, comes not long after
another prominent Republican governor, Chris Christie of New
Jersey, also urged Congress to get moving on sales tax
legislation . . . In a letter sent Thursday, Branstad
encouraged his home-state senators to support a solution that
he said would close a longstanding loophole. `I understand
that the coalition supporting this legislation is now very
broad which gives me hope that, under your leadership, this
legislation can be passed yet this year,' Branstad wrote to
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R) and Tom Harkin (D). `The Internet is
now a robust, mature and dynamic marketplace that does not
warrant special protections,' he added. `The application of
sales taxes only to `brick-and-mortar' retailers, many of
which are small businesses, puts those very entities at a
competitive disadvantage.''' (Bernie Becker & Kevin Bogardus,
``GOP Governors Bolster Sales Tax Push,'' The Hill, 6/10/12)
Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels: ``[S]ales taxes that
[states] impose ought to be paid, and paid by everybody
equally and collected by everybody in the retail business . .
. We're not talking about an additional or new tax here--
we're talking about the collection of a tax that's existed a
long time.'' (Jeremy Hobson, ``Indiana Makes A Deal With
Amazon On Sales Taxes,'' Marketplace Business, 1/12/12)
Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour: ``. . .[E]-
commerce has grown, and there is simply no longer a
compelling reason for government to continue giving online
retailers special treatment over small businesses who reside
on the Main Streets across Mississippi and the country. The
time to level the playing field is now . . .'' (Letter To
Sens. Enzi And Alexander Endorsing S. 1832, The Marketplace
Fairness Act, 11/29/11)
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush: ``It seems to me there
has to be a way to tax sales done online in the same way that
sales are taxed in brick and mortar establishments. My guess
is that there would be hundreds of millions of dollars that
then could be used to reduce taxes to fulfill campaign
promises.'' (Letter To Florida Governor Rick Scott, 1/2/11)
Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I know the block of time for the majority leader starts at
2 o'clock, but I wanted to say while Senator Enzi and the senior
Senator from Tennessee are on the floor how much I appreciate and
admire their advocacy for marketplace fairness.
It is so unfair. I go home to Nevada and I see in those little strip
malls ``For Lease.'' One reason they are for lease and they are not
operating is because people who can go online don't want to pay the
taxes that support the people of the State of Nevada.
It is so wrong, what is going on, and I can't imagine why we can't
move this legislation forward. This has taken years and years. It is so
unfair.
Many businesses have gone bankrupt, out of business as a result of
not having a level playing field. It is very unfortunate we are having
problems getting this done.
I do not understand the House--why they feel the way they do. I don't
understand it, but they do, and I think it is unfair.
I don't think we are getting the support we should from retail
people. They have to talk to their Members when we go home and talk to
Senators. Of course, there are people in town who make a lot of money
representing these
[[Page S6130]]
shopping centers and retail merchants. They get paid a lot of money to
represent them in Congress. I think they are not doing a very good job
if they can't convince Members of the Senate and the House that this
legislation should have passed a long time ago.
Madam President, the hour of 2 o'clock is almost here. Please explain
to me and the people who are watching what happens at 2 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3
p.m. will be under the control of the majority.
The majority leader.
____________________