[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16919-16924]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am going to talk about a problem I have 
tried to solve for 14 years. Today, I think we have a new solution and 
``the'' solution--The Marketplace Fairness Act. Our solution has to do 
with sales taxes that are not being collected at the present time. It 
is a loophole in the tax law.
  I used to be a retailer. I never thought it was fair that I had to 
collect the sales taxes but the people from out of State did not have 
to collect the same sales tax. I used to be a mayor, and this bill is a 
jobs bill and an infrastructure bill. A lot of people do not realize 
that sales taxes help pay for schools, police and firemen. They may not 
realize it pays for infrastructure, such as streets and sewers. I 
always tell people it is a little tough to flush the toilet over the 
Internet.
  The Marketplace Fairness Act would allow States--not require States--
to be able to have the out-of-State online sellers, providing they sell 
more than $500,000 in a year, to collect the State sales tax. I have 
also been a State legislator, and I can tell you we never intended to 
pass a law to tax the people on Main Street who buy the yearbooks and 
participate in community activities to be the ones to collect the tax, 
and anyone from out of State to not have to do it. This bill cleans up 
that problem at the same time. Does it make much of a difference? Yes.
  We are being asked as a Congress to give money to the States for 
their teachers, their firemen, and their infrastructure. It is because 
there is a decreasing amount of revenue going to them through sales 
taxes that are owed, but are not currently being collected. People may 
not realize it, but when they buy something online, if the tax is not 
collected by the seller, they still owe it. This is not a new tax; it 
is a tax that is already on the books. No legislator ever intended for 
it to just be for Main Street retailers. If States so choose, sales 
taxes should be collected by all retailers. In our attempts to fix this 
problem, we have received a number of support letters for this new 
bill. I hope everybody will take a look at them. They can view them 
online. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               National Conference


                                        of State Legislatures,

                                                 November 9, 2011.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Durbin, Enzi, Alexander and Johnson: On 
     behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures 
     (NCSL) we would like to express our support and appreciation 
     for your introduction of the Marketplace Fairness Act, which 
     will provide those states that comply with the simplification 
     requirements outlined in the legislation, the authority to 
     require remote sellers to collect those states' sales taxes.
       At a time when states continue to face severe budget gaps--
     states closed shortfalls totaling $72 billion leading into 
     the FY 2012 budget process--it is essential states be allowed 
     to collect the revenue generated by uncollected sales taxes. 
     In 2012, states will collectively lose an estimated $23.3 
     billion in uncollected sales taxes from out-of-state sales, 
     with more than $11.3 billion alone from electronic commerce 
     transactions, according to a study by the University of 
     Tennessee. The amount of uncollected sales taxes will 
     continue to grow, especially with the unprecedented growth of 
     online commerce.
       The enactment of the Marketplace Fairness Act is imperative 
     in light of the current deliberations by the Joint Select 
     Committee on Deficit Reduction and resulting sequestration if 
     the ``Super Committee'' is unsuccessful. Under either 
     scenario, states will likely face hundreds of billions in 
     reductions in many state-federal programs. While the $23.3 
     billion in uncollected sales taxes will not match any funding 
     reductions, it will provide states with some fiscal relief. 
     In the words of Senator Roy Blunt, a sponsor of this 
     legislation, it is ``fiscal relief for the states that does 
     not cost the federal government a dime.''
       The Marketplace Fairness Act is also a win for local main 
     street businesses throughout the country by leveling the 
     playing field between these main street businesses who have 
     to collect sales taxes and out-of-state merchants who 
     currently do not. Allowing some remote sellers to avoid 
     collecting this tax is unfair to the main street merchants 
     that make up the lifeblood of our local communities. The 
     legislation also removes the liability for businesses 
     collecting sales taxes, ensuring that sellers are held 
     harmless for calculations and collections using the 
     information and certified technology provided by the states 
     that have complied with the Act.
       There will be some who claim that this is a new tax; 
     nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation 
     will not require any state to levy a sales tax on any product 
     or means of buying a product. It merely corrects a tax 
     avoidance problem that if not closed now, will only get worse 
     and possibly push states to seek new revenue sources to make 
     up for the uncollected sales taxes.
       On behalf of our colleagues from across the country, we 
     thank you for introducing this

[[Page 16920]]

     vital legislation and in doing so, enhancing state 
     sovereignty and fiscal federalism.
           Sincerely,

                                       Senator Stephen Morris,

                                         President, Kansas Senate,
                                                   NCSL President.

                                        Senator Richard Moore,

                                             Massachusetts Senate,
     NCSL Immediate Past President.
                                  ____

                                             Streamlined Sales Tax


                                        Governing Board, Inc.,

                                                 November 9, 2011.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Durbin, Enzi, Johnson and Alexander: The 24 
     Streamline states want you to know they support your 
     introduction of the Marketplace Fairness Act.
       Online retailers have a competitive price advantage over 
     brick-and-mortar retailers harming the brick-and-mortar 
     retailers. Many main street businesses are little more than 
     showrooms where consumers go to ``kick the tires'' on 
     products they later buy online harming the local business and 
     the community depending on the sales tax from that sale.
       At a time when Main Street retailers face enormous 
     competitive challenges it is appropriate for Congress to end 
     this unfair treatment.
       After our ten years of effort to simplify sales tax 
     administration we are encouraged by your effort to get 
     Congress to level the playing field for all retailers.
           Sincerely,
                                              Senator Luke Kenley,
     President.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                 Washington, DC, November 9, 2011.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Durbin, Johnson, Enzi and Alexander: On 
     behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the 
     nation's 3,068 counties, I applaud the introduction of the 
     Marketplace Fairness Act. At a time when counties continue to 
     make the tough decisions and provide services for our mutual 
     constituents with fewer resources, we appreciate your 
     legislative efforts to both assure a simpler system of 
     taxation and help our members recover tax revenues due from 
     purchases made by remote means.
       Due to the changing nature of commerce and sales and use 
     tax collection, your legislation responds appropriately by 
     establishing a path to modernize the current system. 
     According to a University of Tennessee study in 2009, e-
     commerce sales have grown from just over $900 billion in 1999 
     to more than $2 trillion in 2006. That same study estimated 
     revenue loss for state and local government to the tune of 
     $10.1 billion to $11.3 billion in sales taxes in 2011 alone. 
     Although NACo has worked with other state and local 
     government representatives to champion for collection of 
     remote sales taxes for over a decade, there is no time better 
     than now for this legislation to move forward. Local 
     governments are facing declining revenues due in part to 
     rising mortgage foreclosures, and a reduction in assistance 
     from their states and the federal government.
       While your legislation is important in moving us towards 
     collection of remote sales tax, it also serves the purpose of 
     creating equity for those businesses within our local 
     communities. The increasing strength of electronic commerce 
     creates exciting new marketplaces, but it has also put 
     traditional retail outlets at an unfair disadvantage because 
     of outdated and inequitable tax and regulatory environments.
       NACo strongly supports your legislative efforts to require 
     collection of taxes made on remote sales, and we appreciate 
     that you recognize the longstanding Streamlined Sales Tax 
     Agreement Project (SSTA). We are also pleased that you have 
     excluded issues such as local telecommunications tax reform, 
     which should be addressed separately from collection of 
     remote sales and use taxes.
       Thank you again for introducing this important legislation. 
     We look forward to working with you and other supporters of 
     the Act and the SSTA to see the collection of remote sales 
     taxes enacted to federal law.
           Sincerely,

                                                Lenny Eliason,

                                Commissioner, Athens County, Ohio,
     NACo 2011-2012 President.
                                  ____

                                                 November 9, 2011.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Durbin, Enzi, Johnson and Alexander: As 
     leaders of the local government associations listed above, we 
     applaud the introduction of the Marketplace Fairness Act, 
     which will both assure a simpler system of taxation and help 
     our members recover tax revenues that are due from purchases 
     made by remote means.
       Your legislation responds appropriately to the changing 
     nature of commerce and sales and use tax collection. While 
     the increasing strength of electronic commerce creates 
     exciting new marketplaces, it has also put traditional retail 
     outlets at an unfair disadvantage because of outdated and 
     inequitable tax and regulatory environments.
       Our organizations strongly support your legislative efforts 
     to require collection of taxes made on remote sales, and we 
     are pleased that in doing so that you recognize the 
     longstanding Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement Project (SSTA). 
     We are also pleased that you have excluded issues such as 
     local telecommunications tax reform, which should be 
     addressed separately from collection of remote sales and use 
     taxes.
       Although we have championed for collection of remote sales 
     taxes for over a decade, there is no time better than now for 
     this legislation to move forward, as local governments face 
     the fifth straight year of declines in revenue with probable 
     further declines in 2012.
       Thank you again for introducing this important legislation. 
     We look forward to working with you and other supporters of 
     the Act and the SSTA to see the collection of remote sales 
     taxes enacted into federal law.
           Sincerely,
     Larry E. Naake,
       Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
     Donald J. Borut,
       Executive Director, National League of Cities.
     Tom Cochran,
       CEO and Executive Director, United States Conference of 
     Mayors.
     Jeffrey L. Esser,
       Executive Director and CEO, Government Finance Officers 
     Association.
                                  ____

                                                     Federation of


                                           Tax Administrators,

                                                 November 9, 2011.
     Senator Richard J. Durbin,
     Senate Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Michael B. Enzi,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Lamar Alexander,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Tim Johnson,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Durbin, Enzi, Alexander and Johnson: The 
     Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) thanks you for 
     introducing the new version of the Main Street Fairness Act 
     for which we are pleased to be able to announce our support. 
     FTA is an association of the tax administration agencies in 
     each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York 
     City.
       The Main Street Fairness Act offers a realistic framework 
     for both large and small states to collect sales taxes that 
     are already due and owing in a simplified administrative 
     system. We regard the ability to collect sales taxes from 
     remote sellers to be a matter of the highest importance. This 
     Act will significantly improve tax compliance for both state 
     and local governments while at the same time creating a level 
     playing field for all businesses. This is because the current 
     system disadvantages in-state ``bricks and mortar'' stores to 
     the advantage of out-of-state businesses and this Act will 
     help improve business activities in our states and the 
     employment these in-state businesses generate.
       We look forward to working with you during the legislative 
     process to enact final legislation into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                Patrick T. Carter,
     President.
                                  ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 2011.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Assistant Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Chairman, Republican Conference, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi, Senator Durbin, Senator Alexander and 
     Senator Johnson: On behalf of the National Retail Federation

[[Page 16921]]

     (NRF), I am writing in support of the Marketplace Fairness 
     Act, which levels the playing field between local and out-of-
     state merchants with respect to collection of sales taxes.
       As the state of retailing evolves and internet sales become 
     a more prominent portion of total retail sales, it is 
     critical that the tax laws not discriminate between similar 
     businesses based on how their products are distributed. The 
     Marketplace Fairness Act will eliminate this discrimination 
     by removing the constitutional limitation on your State's 
     authority to collect sales and use taxes from remote sellers. 
     Over a quarter trillion dollars will go uncollected in the 
     next decade unless this legislation is enacted.
       As the world's largest retail trade association and the 
     voice of retail worldwide, NRF's global membership includes 
     retailers of all sizes, formats and channels of distribution 
     as well as chain restaurants and industry partners from the 
     United States and more than 45 countries abroad. In the U.S., 
     NRF represents an industry that includes more than 3.6 
     million establishments and which directly and indirectly 
     accounts for 42 million jobs--one in four U.S. jobs. The 
     total U.S. GDP impact of retail is $2.5 trillion annually, 
     and retail is a daily barometer of the health of the nation's 
     economy.
       The Marketplace Fairness Act will bring fairness to large 
     and small retailers alike and provide a business climate in 
     which these retailers have a better opportunity to grow and 
     create jobs. Our members look forward to working with you to 
     help this legislation become law.
           Sincerely,

                                                 David French,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                                   Retail Industry


                                          Leaders Association,

                                  Arlington, VA, November 9, 2011.
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders 
     Associations (RILA), and the millions of Main Street 
     retailers throughout the country, we would like to express 
     our strong support for the Marketplace Fairness Act. This 
     legislation levels the playing field for Main Street brick-
     and-mortar businesses by closing a loophole that puts them at 
     a competitive disadvantage to the online retail giants. RILA 
     and our membership are grateful for your leadership on this 
     important issue and we are committed to helping make this 
     legislation law this Congress.
       By way of background, RILA is the trade association of the 
     world's largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA 
     promotes consumer choice and economic freedom through public 
     policy and industry operational excellence. Its members 
     include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and 
     service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 
     trillion in annual sales, millions of American jobs and 
     operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities 
     and distribution centers domestically and abroad.
       Because of a decades-old loophole that pre-dates the 
     Internet, online-only companies can achieve as much as a 10-
     percent price advantage over brick-and-mortar retailers by 
     not collecting state sales taxes. This special treatment has 
     the effect of the government picking winners and losers in 
     the marketplace, and main street businesses simply cannot 
     compete over the long term with online giants that enjoy a 
     government-sanctioned competitive advantage.
       This loophole is costing jobs on Main Street while 
     shortchanging state budgets by an estimated $23 billion in 
     uncollected state sales taxes annually, a figure that will 
     only increase as Internet commerce continues to grow. Few 
     Americans know that their state requires them to pay the 
     sales tax on purchases made online if the vendor does not 
     collect it at the point of sale, leaving consumers vulnerable 
     to penalties, interest and increased scrutiny from state 
     auditors. If enacted, the Marketplace Fairness Act would 
     remove this burden from your constituents and in the process 
     empower states to address their budget deficits without 
     having to raise taxes--all without any cost to the federal 
     government.
       In closing, we strongly support the Marketplace Fairness 
     Act to eliminate this antiquated loophole and view it as 
     critical to preserving Main Street businesses and the jobs 
     they provide. Thank you again for your leadership on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,

                                              Katherine Lugar,

                                         Executive Vice President,
     Public Affairs.
                                  ____

                                             International Council


                                    of Shopping Centers, Inc.,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 2011.
       Dear Senators Alexander, Durbin and Enzi: On behalf of the 
     more than 42,000 members of the International Council of 
     Shopping Centers (ICSC), I would like to thank you for your 
     leadership on the Marketplace Fairness Act. We strongly 
     support this bipartisan legislation that will level the 
     playing field for community-based retailers by offering long-
     overdue sales tax fairness.
       ICSC was founded in 1957 and is the premier global trade 
     association of the shopping center industry. Its members 
     include shopping center owners, developers, managers, 
     marketing specialists, investors, retailers and brokers, as 
     well as academics and public officials.
       Under the current system, not all retail sales are treated 
     equally. While brick-and-mortar retailers must remit sales 
     and use taxes, many remote sellers, such as catalog and 
     online vendors, are exempt from such requirements. Our 
     current sales tax policy unfairly impacts local retailers--
     many of whom have also been hit during the recession--and 
     places an impractical legal burden on taxpayers and 
     consumers, costing state and local governments billions in 
     much-needed revenue.
       The Marketplace Fairness Act would eliminate the present 
     system's lopsided manner of taxing community-based retailers, 
     remove the liability currently being pushed onto consumers, 
     and promote community investment. More importantly, it would 
     provide support for local businesses and necessary revenue to 
     states without adding to the federal deficit, establishing 
     new taxes or increasing existing taxes. This bill is a true 
     stimulus for our states and local communities.
       It is time for the federal government to allow states to 
     enforce their laws and promote sound policy that will allow 
     community-based and internet retailers to thrive in the 21st 
     Century marketplace.
       Thank you again for the dedication and strong leadership 
     that was required to create this important legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Betsy Laird,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                   Office of Global Public Policy.

  Mr. ENZI. Some of the groups include: One is from the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, one from the National Association of 
Counties, the National League of Cities, the Federation of Tax 
Administrators, The National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry 
Leaders Association, the International Council of Shopping Centers, and 
the Governing Board of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.
  I want to read one from Amazon.com because they are one of the 
world's largest online sellers. In the past, they have opposed previous 
versions of the bill, but they think we have this one right.
  The letter states:

       Thank you very much for your legislation on interstate 
     sales tax collection.
       Amazon strongly supports enactment of your bill and will 
     work with you, your colleagues in Congress, retailers, and 
     the states to get this bipartisan legislation passed. It's a 
     win-win resolution--and as analysts have noted, Amazon offers 
     customers the best prices with or without sales tax.
       If enacted, your bill will allow states to require out of 
     state retailers to collect sales tax at the time of purchase 
     and remit those taxes on behalf of customers, and it will 
     facilitate collection on behalf of third party sellers. Thus, 
     your bill will allow states to obtain additional revenue 
     without new taxes or federal spending and will make it easy 
     for consumers and small retailers to comply with state sales 
     tax laws.
       Amazon is grateful for your hard work on the issue, and we 
     look forward to working with you and your colleagues in 
     Congress to pass this legislation.

  We have a number of other supporters in addition to the others I just 
mentioned. We are appreciative of their support and look forward to 
working with them to get this bill enacted.
  The Marketplace Fairness Act is a bipartisan bill. The original 
cosponsors on it are five Republicans--Senators Alexander, Boozman, 
Blunt, Corker, and me and five Democrats--Senators Durbin, Tim Johnson, 
Reed, Whitehouse, and Pryor. A key person in this debate has been the 
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, who introduced a previous version of 
the bill. We encourage our colleagues to take a look at Senator 
Durbin's previously introduced bill and the Marketplace Fairness Act to 
see the differences--I think our bipartisan bill is a very passable 
bill.
  At this point, I would ask Senator Durbin if he has any comments he 
would like to share as he has been an integral part of making the bill 
a strong bipartisan product and realizing the plight the retailers and 
the state and local governments are in.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague, Senator Enzi. I want to give fair 
warning to all who are witnessing the debate that bipartisanship is 
about to break out on the floor of the Senate, and you can witness it. 
We have a bipartisan effort led by Senator Enzi,

[[Page 16922]]

who has really been dedicating his life in public service, as a former 
retailer, to being sensitive to the needs of Main Street and small 
business. For years, he worked with our former colleague, Senator Byron 
Dorgan of North Dakota, and they did their best to pass this 
legislation. When Senator Dorgan retired, I approached Senator Enzi and 
said: I would like to join you in this effort. I am honored to be on 
the floor with him and our mutual friend, Senator Alexander, in this 
combined bipartisan effort to deal with an issue I think is essential 
to fairness in our economy and helping small businesses thrive, which 
is the key to economic revitalization.
  If you ask the small businesses in my home State of Illinois what 
they want, it is not a big handout from Washington, nor any special 
attention. Frankly, they ask for a level playing field: Let them 
compete. What Senator Enzi has said is that many retailers in my State, 
his, and every State are finding it more difficult to compete because 
they have to rent a building or buy one. They have to pay the property 
taxes. They, of course, have to pay utility bills and local taxes that 
might be generated because of their sales either to the State or local 
government. In each instance, they are investing back into the 
community and State in which they live. That is part of the basic 
understanding we have in this country, that we are in this together and 
we need to cooperate. The businessman down the street who is selling 
something in a store is also at the same time supporting the local 
community to make sure it has traffic lights and make certain it has 
police protection and utilities and streets and curbs and gutters and 
everything that goes with it.
  But there has been a new phenomena in the American marketplace over 
the last several decades, and now it is in full throat, and that is the 
Internet. Internet sales are an amazing entity--we can literally click 
a mouse and buy a product that will arrive several days later at our 
home or business place. It also has invited an inequity, an unfairness 
that we address in this bill.
  We are not creating any new taxes in this bill. I say to my friends 
on both sides of the aisle, that is not our intention, nor does this 
bill do that. What it does is it provides a mechanism to collect 
existing taxes that are owed under existing law, period. We do this in 
a fashion--which Senator Alexander will describe in a moment--that 
capitalizes on the technology and software available today to make this 
a process that is not burdensome and does not slow down commerce in any 
way.
  I recently went to Bloomington, IL, and a number of other communities 
in my State and sat down with local retailers and had them tell their 
stories--in many cases, depressing stories--about what they are going 
through. In one instance, this fellow sells camping gear, outdoor wear, 
some snorkeling equipment, and ski equipment, and it is not unusual for 
him and for others who are selling that type of sporting equipment to 
have local customers come in and look for the product they want, 
actually get a fitting to make sure they get the right size, and then 
leave to order it on the Internet so they can escape any sales tax 
liability. Well, that isn't fair to the local merchant, and it 
certainly wasn't the intention of Illinois or any other State to impose 
a sales tax just on those businesses that physically exist in our 
States.
  This bill, the Marketplace Fairness Act, applies this sales tax 
across the board to sales across the United States, and it is 
voluntary. States have to decide they want to move into this field and 
use this opportunity. I think that is the way to approach it. Some 24 
States, if I am not mistaken, have already signed up for this 
streamlined coalition which allows them to make this happen. Other 
States, by complying with this law and passing a local State law, can 
do the same. It is their option. We don't impose it or demand it. It is 
their option, if they choose it, to use existing sales tax and to take 
the initiative at the State level. As Senator Alexander has reminded me 
many times, it is a States rights issue, as it should be, and that is 
what we are focusing on in this legislation.
  I think it is an issue of fairness, and I think it goes beyond what 
we are facing today in terms of the disparity between Democrats and 
Republicans. We are coming together. We are coming together on behalf 
of tax fairness, coming together on behalf of States rights, coming 
together to make certain that small businesses across America have the 
resources they need to prosper, be profitable, and, we hope, to expand 
their workforce. We need to create more jobs, and I don't think it is 
unreasonable to expect that to happen as these local retailers become 
more competitive and more profitable.
  I might also add that the States that decide to opt in to it will 
have a source of revenue that will be helpful to them in difficult 
times. Again, it is their decision.
  I will not recount all of the groups that have endorsed this; Senator 
Enzi already has. It is a pretty impressive array. One of the most 
impressive supporters he has read a letter from is Amazon--to think 
that one of the largest if not the largest online retailer in America 
endorses this bill. When I think back on all of the battles that have 
been fought in all of the States by Amazon when each State tried to 
address this, I believe it is telling that they have stepped forward 
and said: Here is a solution that can work. And if the largest online 
retailer in America--or one of the largest--feels that way, it should 
encourage many colleagues who don't want to destroy that part of our 
economy, and I certainly don't either.
  This is a positive step in the right direction. I thank Senator Tim 
Johnson, Senator Boozman, Senator Jack Reed, Senator Blunt, Senator 
Whitehouse, and many others who are going to join Senator Enzi, Senator 
Alexander, and myself in this effort to pass this bipartisan bill. 
Let's get this done. Let's work together on a bipartisan basis to solve 
a problem that has haunted us for over a decade and do it in a fair 
fashion that does not create any new taxes but gives to the States the 
right to collect those taxes that are already on the book.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. The minority has 
20 seconds left.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask consent to extend the colloquy into Democratic 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I wish to congratulate Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin 
and say how pleased I am to join as a cosponsor of their legislation. 
Here is what I want to congratulate them for. Senator Enzi said he came 
to this as a former mayor, as a former shoe shop owner, and as a former 
legislator. I come as a former Governor.
  In our constitutional framework, I have always thought it was our 
business in Tennessee to decide what services we wanted to provide and 
what taxes we wanted to levy to pay for them. For example, we have a 
high sales tax, but we have no income tax. That is different from most 
States. We have a low overall tax burden. For me, this is, as Senator 
Durbin and I have discussed, a matter of States rights.
  I think the most important thing I could say today is that they have 
solved the problem with this legislation. This problem has been there 
for a long time. It has had the opposition of conservatives worried 
about taxes. It has had the opposition of Amazon and other online 
sellers.
  Twenty years ago, when technology for businesses to compute and 
collect taxes was not nearly as innovative as it is today, the Supreme 
Court said that without congressional approval, states could not 
require out-of-state businesses to collect sales taxes because this 
created too much of a burden on interstate commerce. Senator Enzi and 
Senator Durbin, with this legislation, in my opinion, have solved the 
problem, and this is going to happen.
  I am not presumptuous enough to predict what the Congress will do and

[[Page 16923]]

what the President will sign, but I think I have been around long 
enough and I have watched Congress enough to say this is going to 
happen. And if I were Governor, if I were an online retailer, or if I 
were a catalog retailer, I would make my plans to conduct my business 
in this way. Why do I say that? Well, for one thing, times have 
changed.
  This morning, I got up and looked up the weather in my hometown. So I 
went online and put in weather, 37886--that is my ZIP Code--and back 
came the information. Under the bill Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi 
have proposed, the State would create a system for Amazon, let's say as 
an example, an online seller. All they would have to do, if I buy a 
$300 or $400 television set, is they put my name in, they put in my ZIP 
code, and the software the State has provided will tell them what the 
tax is and will even electronically transfer the tax money back to the 
State. In other words, Amazon will do the same thing the appliance 
store in Maryville, TN, will do, and that is what we intended to 
happen.
  I mean, when we passed a sales tax in Tennessee--I wasn't around 
then, but I was around when it has been raised--we didn't intend to 
exempt some people over others. We didn't intend to subsidize some 
businesses over others. We made a general decision that when we buy 
things in Tennessee, all sellers would collect the sales tax. We have a 
local sales tax and we have a State sales tax, and that is our right to 
decide.
  Some of the opposition in the past has come from conservative groups. 
It was important, just yesterday, to see the chairman of the American 
Conservative Union write a very strong article in support of a House 
version of this same bill. I talked with him yesterday, Mr. Al 
Cardenas, a businessman from Florida, and he is reviewing our bill.
  Ten years ago, William F. Buckley wrote about this problem and said 
that it was a loophole that needed to be solved and when States decided 
to subsidize some taxpayers over others and some businesses over 
others, that was not good conservative philosophy.
  So when you have Amazon supporting in a strong letter that Senator 
Enzi read, and when you have the chairman of the American Conservative 
Union on the same day announcing his support for the same principles, I 
think you have solved the problem.
  As Amazon just said in their letter, they are in business to compete 
and they can sell their goods, they claim, cheaper online than they can 
buy them in Senator Enzi's store in Gillette, WY. Maybe they can, maybe 
they can't, but at least they will have a level playing field, and both 
the store in Gillette, WY, and the online seller will do the very same 
thing. They will collect the sales tax that is already owed from the 
purchaser and they will send it directly to the State, which has been 
the way things have worked for a long time.
  This is an issue about preserving the States' right to collect or not 
to collect their own sales tax. It is about closing a tax loophole. It 
is about stopping the subsidization of some businesses over others, of 
some taxpayers over others.
  I will conclude my remarks in a moment, but first here is what 
William F. Buckley said about it:

       The mattress maker in Connecticut . . . 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.

  Of course, Governors and legislators are up in arms as well. This 
loophole costs States $23 billion. Tennessee could use this money to 
ward off a State income tax which we don't have and we don't want. 
Wyoming could use the revenue to reduce its property tax. Other States 
might reduce rising college tuitions, or they might reward outstanding 
teachers.
  This has been a problem for the last 20 years, but Senator Enzi and 
Senator Durbin, with their legislation, have solved the problem.
  I will stop where I started. This is not a new tax, it is an existing 
tax. It is not a tax on the Internet; it is on all sales. Senator Enzi 
and Senator Durbin, with their legislation, have solved the problem, 
and I predict that because of the voluntary agreements and the ease of 
out-of-State vendors doing the same thing Main Street vendors do, that 
very soon we will eliminate these subsidies and close this loophole. I 
congratulate them for their years of work in this area. I am happy to 
join 10 Senators--5 Republicans, 5 Democrats--in cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include for the Record the 
article by Al Cardenas, the head of the American Conservative Union; 
the essay by William F. Buckley; and a letter from Governor Bill Haslam 
of Tennessee, endorsing the Enzi-Durbin legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From National Review Online, Nov. 8, 2011]

       The Chief Threat to American Competitiveness: Our Tax Code

                            (By Al Cardenas)

       More than three years after America's financial system hit 
     a crisis point, the state of our economy remains in turmoil. 
     As our nation's leaders grapple with immediate challenges 
     through dueling jobs plans and the Joint Select Committee on 
     Deficit Reduction tries to come to agreement on a trillion 
     and a half in reductions, we must also consider long-term 
     measures to strengthen our economic security. As it stands 
     now, the number one threat to the future of American 
     competitiveness isn't other countries. It's our tax law.
       The United States Tax Code is difficult to understand and 
     even harder to navigate, for families and businesses alike. 
     Title 26 has been patchworked, reformed, and tinkered with 
     for decades, giving us an antiquated mess of laws rife with 
     inequities. Our corporate tax rate is among the highest in 
     the world. We refuse to shift to a Territorial Tax System 
     that would stop punishing our companies for bringing earned 
     overseas income back to the U.S. for reinvestment. Tax rates 
     for small businesses remain high and inconsistent.
       A robust free-market system requires a level playing field, 
     where the government doesn't get to pick the winners and 
     losers. We should require the same of our system of taxation. 
     We need a simpler, fairer, flatter tax code that removes 
     loopholes, subsidies, and credits, one that lowers rates 
     across the board and expands the percentage of Americans 
     paying their fair share of taxes.
       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.
       This is why the American Conservative Union applauds Rep. 
     Steve Womack for his sponsorship of the Marketplace Equity 
     Act of 2011, one of the first sincere attempts to modernize 
     our tax policy for the 21st century.
       As conservatives we know that governmental power can be 
     used to destroy entrepreneurship, innovation and the free 
     market. There is no more glaring example of misguided 
     government power then when taxes or regulations affect two 
     similar businesses completely differently.
       Over time, the company that has to comply with a tax or a 
     regulation will lose market share to its competitor who is 
     carved out from this government interference. In these cases 
     the winner is not the company who outcompetes, but the one 
     who gets special privileges from the government.
       At its inception, the Internet was everyone's darling, the 
     latest example of American innovation and ingenuity. Internet 
     sales represented a miniscule portion of the total retail 
     market, and the novelty led to tax loopholes and unintended 
     consequences. Now, according to Forrester Research, Internet 
     sales account for nearly 10 percent of all sales of products 
     and services in America, with an annual growth rate of about 
     9 percent.
       If we do not confront this issue, state and local 
     governments dependent on sales taxes will need to look for 
     other sources of revenues as Internet sales continue to 
     expand. Policy which allows for both online and brick and 
     mortar retailers to be susceptible to the same taxes will--
     and should--allow for commensurate reductions in sales tax 
     rates. For instance, if Internet sales tax revenues will add 
     10 percent in revenue to a governing body's coffers, then, at 
     a minimum, a corresponding overall reduction in rates should 
     apply.
       The current system is also inconsistent with states' 
     rights, and the Congress ought

[[Page 16924]]

     to carefully consider enacting revenue neutral tax reform 
     policies consistent with the Tenth Amendment.
       The free-market system can only operate effectively on a 
     level playing field of free and fair competition. Whether 
     it's the Department of Energy's disastrous Solyndra project, 
     or levying sales taxes, or a multitude of other policy 
     decisions that impact the private sector, the government 
     picking winners and losers is a perversion of the free market 
     system. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill--especially conservatives--
     ought to at least acknowledge this when deliberating 
     important reforms to the tax code. As we consider wholesale 
     reform, exempting Internet sales can no longer be justified.
       The Marketplace Equity Act of 2011 begins this 
     conversation. It's not a perfect bill, but it's a critical 
     beginning to this dialogue and should spark bipartisan 
     support for revenue neutral reforms. Rest assured, we will 
     not be party to or stand for Trojan Horse legislation that 
     claims to strive for equity in the law merely to serve as a 
     cloak for secret tax increases.
       We have a great opportunity to drastically lower rates, 
     especially corporate rates, and eliminate esoteric tax 
     preferences to stave off the next massive financial crisis. A 
     flatter, fairer, simpler tax code is the key to ensuring 
     American competitiveness for generations to come. Our leaders 
     in Congress are obligated to thoughtfully consider measures 
     to achieve this.
                                  ____


              [From National Review Online, Oct. 19, 2001]

                      Get That Internet Tax Right

                      (By William F. Buckley Jr.)

       Congress is up against it: what to do about Internet 
     commerce?
       To return to an example given earlier in this space, you 
     have a mother living in Hartford, Connecticut, looking for a 
     new mattress and spotting one on the website of a producer in 
     Massachusetts. The feel of it is right, and so is the price, 
     so the $500 order is placed. The mattress crossing the border 
     is not taxed, because writing the Constitution in 
     Philadelphia in 1787, it was decided: no tariffs within the 
     13 states. Interstate commerce would be regulated only by 
     Congress.
       Which is all to the good, but Connecticut takes the 
     position that the family living happily in Hartford has to 
     pay its share of the cost of government, which entitles the 
     treasury to a use tax. If the mother in Hartford who sent out 
     for the mattress in Massachusetts were a perfect citizen, she 
     would write a check for $30 (6 percent) to the State of 
     Connecticut and sleep at complete ease with her conscience. 
     What she does do, is sleep at complete ease with her 
     conscience without sending in the check for $30. The reason 
     for it is that taxes of that order are pretty well 
     uncollectable. An uncollectable tax is one which would cost 
     more to exact it would yield in profit. There is, in 
     addition, the political question. People wouldn't like it 
     when Big Brother stared into every out-of-state package, 
     inquiring whether there is something in it for city hall.
       So that one part of the pressure building on Congress is 
     collectivist: to let states come in with a transfer tax. But 
     a second pressure is from merchants who see themselves 
     affected by untaxed transactions. 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.
       Three years ago, Congress voted to continue until 2001 the 
     tax-free character of interstate commerce. This meant not 
     only a prospective loss of tax to the affected states, it 
     meant also something on the order of a benediction on a 
     staggering development in technology. The Internet is the 
     happiest intellectual, journalistic, and educational 
     development in history, and the thought of letting the weeds 
     of prehensile government crawl about it struck some as on the 
     order of enforced shutters on sunlight, or taps on 
     waterfalls.
       But, sigh, that was three years ago, which in the Internet 
     business is three millennia ago. The estimated commerce done 
     by the Internet in 1998 was $9 billion. Last year it was $26 
     billion. Which means we have to come to earth, and face 
     homespun economic truths. If the advantage of tax-free 
     Internet commerce marginally closes out local industry, 
     reforms are required.
       The mechanics of reforms call on holding not the buyer, but 
     the seller, responsible. It still won't be possible to target 
     the mother in Hartford directly when the mattress arrives, 
     but the exporter of it in Massachusetts can be required to 
     add $30 to the cost of the mattress, and send the check off 
     to Connecticut Internal Revenue. It is, finally, impossible 
     for Congress to wrestle with the problem without yielding to 
     legitimate demands of the states spending the money on 
     education, police, and fire departments, and deprive them of 
     revenue.
       The question has not come up in the current welter of 
     proposals, but we have to watch carefully to prevent the 
     United States Postal Service from getting into the act. The 
     most calamitous exposure of the postal service since the days 
     of mail-train robberies is of course fax and the Internet. 
     These are, for all intents and purposes, absolutely free 
     transactions. One hundred messages can be sent out, or for 
     that matter one thousand, for less than the cost of a first-
     class postage stamp. A rumor swept about the medium, a year 
     or so back, that a proposal was making way that would charge 
     five cents for every communication sent out on the Internet.
       The very idea is heretical, like charging for Communion 
     wafers. To tax the Internet for the benefit of the postal 
     service is unsupportable reasoning. The postal service needs 
     to survive from its own revenues. If there is a shortfall, 
     the government can come up with it, as required, on the same 
     principle as rural free delivery. But to attempt to relieve 
     its problems by contaminating the Internet is something that 
     any congressman who has taken an oath to right reason is 
     bound to oppose.
                                  ____

                                                 November 8, 2011.
     Senator Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Alexander: I am writing to thank you for your 
     leadership in helping to advance a federal solution to a 
     problem states need Congress to address: the preservation of 
     their own right to enforce their own tax laws and returning 
     fairness to the marketplace.
       The Marketplace Fairness Act will bring much needed, and 
     long overdue, relief to the State of Tennessee. Tennessee and 
     other states are currently unable to compel out-of-state 
     businesses to collect sales taxes the same way local 
     businesses do. It is important for states to determine their 
     own tax policy and have the ability to collect the revenues 
     they are already owed. This is why your legislation is so 
     important.
       The Internet has changed the way we do business and 
     provides small businesses the opportunity to grow, but we 
     need our laws to adapt to this new marketplace. Our state 
     relies on sales taxes for the majority of its revenue, and 
     each year we are losing hundreds of millions of dollars that 
     could be used to benefit Tennessee. What cannot happen is for 
     Congress to do nothing, which will prevent states from 
     enforcing their own laws.
       Your legislation gives states the flexibility to determine 
     what works best for them, and I am grateful that you are 
     putting states' rights first and closing this online sales-
     tax loophole. The Marketplace Fairness Act strikes the right 
     balance for Tennessee, and I fully support your efforts.
           Warmest regards,
                                                      Bill Haslam,
                                     Governor, State of Tennessee.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Tennessee yield for 
a moment?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Oh, yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I wish to go on the record on behalf of myself and, I am 
sure Senator Enzi, in saying that Senator Alexander doesn't give 
himself enough credit. He has been an integral part of putting together 
this bipartisan bill. We wouldn't be here without him. I want to thank 
him for facilitating the bipartisan effort to put this bill together. I 
share his feelings. I think we have finally found that sweet spot, and 
we can pass this bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to return to morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me also commend Senator Enzi and Senator 
Durbin and Senator Alexander because I too am a cosponsor of this 
legislation, and I think it does represent a remarkably thoughtful and 
bipartisan approach to the problem of providing resources to local 
States and communities so they can carry out the very challenging 
issues of local governments. I am not surprised that Senator Alexander 
is a key element in this product. Both Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin 
deserve to be complimented. I thank them for their leadership.

                          ____________________