[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1039-1041]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the January jobs report shows that 
President Obama and many others have joined to help put our economy on 
the path to recovery. The economy added 257,000 private sector jobs in 
January. That is the 23rd month in a row that the economy has added 
private sector jobs, for a total of 3.7 million payroll jobs over that 
same period.
  In January, the unemployment rate fell again from 8.5 to 8.3 percent. 
The unemployment rate has fallen .8 percent since August. That is the 
first time in almost 17 years that the unemployment rate has fallen for 
5 consecutive months.
  Job growth is occurring across many sectors of our economy. In 
Illinois, we are seeing manufacturing jobs return, some from overseas, 
and across the country last month the manufacturing sector added 50,000 
new good-paying jobs.
  Don't get me wrong, we still have a long way to go. We have to 
quickly agree on the extension of the payroll tax cut, which will 
expire in just a few days. We have to ensure that unemployment benefits 
for those looking for work are continued. We are on the right track, 
but we shouldn't rest in our efforts to foster an economy that is built 
to last.
  I am not a deficit and debt denier. I understand the gravity of our 
fiscal challenge, and we need to work to resolve these problems. I hope 
my work on the President's fiscal commission and as part of the Gang of 
6 shows a commitment to this issue. However, as Ben Bernanke, Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve, said last week:

       Even as fiscal policymakers address the urgent issue of 
     fiscal sustainability, they should take care not to 
     necessarily impede the current economic recovery.
       Fortunately, the two goals of achieving long-term fiscal 
     sustainability and avoiding additional fiscal headwinds for 
     the current recovery are fully compatible--indeed, they are 
     mutually reinforcing.
       On the one hand, a more robust recovery will lead to lower 
     deficits and debt in coming years. On the other hand, a plan 
     that clearly and credibly puts fiscal policy on a path to 
     sustainability could help keep longer-term interest rates low 
     and improve household and business confidence, thereby 
     supporting improved economic performance today.

  We can grow our economy and reduce the deficit. In fact, it is 
arguable that we can't balance our books or the budget with 14 million 
people out of work. We have to work to put this economy back on its 
feet, to put Americans back to work earning good incomes, paying their 
fair share of taxes, and sustaining a growing economy.
  A credible deficit reduction plan will include investments that look 
to the future. Not only can we be fiscally responsible and still invest 
in infrastructure, education, and innovation, we can only be fiscally 
responsible if we do make those investments. Failing to invest in the 
future is a recipe for more intractable fiscal problems in the years to 
come.
  Those who say just cut spending and ignore the consequences ignore 
the reality. There are those who say that government spending is 
holding our economy back. They say that if we cut government spending, 
somehow we are going to enliven and rejuvenate this economy. History 
tells us quite a different story. President Clinton presided over the 
strongest period of private sector growth in recent memory, and he did 
so while government spending grew every year from 1995 to 2000. In 3 of 
those years, President Clinton generated a balanced budget--the last 
balanced budget we have seen in Washington.
  It is clear to me that we should be heartened by the recent positive 
economic data, but we can't mistake it for a signal to retreat. We have 
to continue working to build a strong and fiscally sound economy for 
the 21st century. A critical element in that is unemployment insurance. 
The January report, as I mentioned, says we are on the road to 
recovery, adding 257,000 private sector jobs, with the unemployment 
rate dipping from 8.5 to 8.3 percent. Even with these gains, more than 
12\1/2\ million people are still unemployed and actively looking for 
work. Even more concerning is the number of longer term unemployed, 
which remains at about 5.5 million. The trouble finding work isn't due 
to lack of initiative. We need more jobs. And until there are more jobs 
available, we should maintain unemployment insurance benefits at 
current levels.
  Maintaining the current level of Federal unemployment insurance has 
proven to be one of the best things Congress can do to breathe life 
into this economy. The Congressional Budget Office--respected and 
bipartisan--estimates that every dollar we put into unemployment 
insurance not only goes into the economy but is respent and is worth 
$1.90 in economic activity. Late last year, the Economic Policy 
Institute estimated that extending Federal unemployment benefits for 1 
additional year generates $72 billion in economic growth, creating over 
560,000 jobs over the course of the year.
  An estimated 3.2 million people were kept out of poverty simply 
because of unemployment insurance checks. As of the end of last year, 
200,000 individuals were collecting unemployment in Illinois, with 43 
percent of those unemployed people having children in their homes.
  I came to the floor today to reinforce for my colleagues and the 
conferees working on the payroll tax-unemployment insurance bill that 
this isn't just about numbers, it is about real lives.
  I received a letter from Laurel in December, who does a far better 
job of illustrating the role of unemployment benefits than anything I 
can say. Here is what Laurel wrote:

       Thank you for working late nights. I am from Evanston, IL. 
     I graduated from Evanston Township High School. My position 
     as Ethics and Compliance Manager in a large multi-national 
     conglomerate was eliminated last December 2010.
       I am trained as a lawyer, and have worked in international 
     law, economics and policy. In addition to a law degree, I 
     have a Master of Science in International Relations from the 
     London School of Economics. I wrote my thesis about US trade 
     policy, the now expired Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, 
     and international economics and labor at LSE.
       After working for a think tank in London on democracy and 
     participation, I went to law school. During law school, I 
     interned at the United Nations and later for the legal and 
     regulatory group of a Wall Street research service.
       I was working in the legal department of Smiths Group on 
     international compliance issues when I was laid off. While 
     working for Smiths Group, I studied for an LLM in 
     international comparative law in the evenings.
       After being laid off, I received severance from my previous 
     employer and was able to get a short-term contract with the 
     World Bank after only a few weeks of unemployment. However, 
     since the end of that contract in July, I have not been able 
     to find a job or get a contract.
       My first phase of unemployment ended in November. I have 
     now been receiving unemployment insurance payments for 7 
     months, just beginning Phase II. If unemployment insurance 
     extensions are not renewed, I understand I will no longer 
     receive payments.
       I am a 38-year-old single female living alone. My parents 
     are elderly, and my mother was just diagnosed with breast 
     cancer. My dad has had two strokes in the last 6 years.
       I am paying $402 a month in COBRA payments to keep my 
     health insurance. I rent an apartment and unemployment just 
     barely covers my rent. I have been living on savings since 
     July. Without the help of unemployment, I will not be able to 
     pay my rent, and I am terrified.
       I have had over 20 informational interviews and applied to 
     42 jobs since I first heard my job might be eliminated last 
     November.
       The extension of unemployment insurance means something to 
     me personally. I need more time. I believe at least with some 
     of the applications I have submitted in both the private 
     sector and government agencies, the companies have not hired 
     anyone despite posting a job. I believe many companies are 
     waiting to see what will happen with government contracts, 
     and agencies are stalled due to the hiring freeze or funding. 
     I know something has to come through soon . . . I support the 
     efforts to support the extension of unemployment benefits.

  Is this an example of someone who is not trying, someone who is not 
trained and educated? Just the opposite. Here is a person who clearly 
has been driven

[[Page 1040]]

her entire life to develop skills, to challenge herself, to improve her 
ability to earn and learn, and here she is out of work and desperate. 
She doesn't know which way to turn. She is single. She may not be able 
to pay her rent. Are unemployment benefits important for her to keep 
her on the track of finding a job? Of course they are. The money we 
give her will be spent back into the economy to create a better 
economic climate.
  I have received thousands of letters along these lines in the last 2 
years. If Congress doesn't move quickly to maintain unemployment 
insurance benefits, millions of workers relying on this program will be 
left without a lifeline. The Joint Economic Committee estimates that 
3.3 million workers will exhaust benefits by June if we fail to act--
nearly 170,000 in Illinois. I am concerned about what this will do to 
our country and especially what it will do to these people--our 
neighbors, members of our families, friends, folks who just need a 
helping hand.
  Prematurely ending unemployment insurance or the payroll tax cut 
would make our economic recovery more difficult. There may be some 
political strategists who would applaud that, saying: Well, a little 
bit of pain for a few months here and we can change that President into 
another person. Let someone else take the job.
  I think that is very shortsighted. Of course, I support the 
President, make no mistake about it, but to sacrifice the well-being of 
this country and the growth of our economy for the sake of an election 
is just plain wrong.
  Conferees in the Congress must act soon to maintain a robust 
unemployment insurance system for those still struggling to find work. 
Now is not the time to roll back unemployment insurance.


                        Marketplace Fairness Act

  Mr. President, there is one other issue I would like to raise at this 
point, and it is one I have worked on for some period of time with 
Senator Mike Enzi. It relates to a phenomena all of us are aware of--
Internet sales. There is hardly an American with access to a computer 
who doesn't buy something on the computer. I do, and lots of families 
do--some of the basics, in addition to some other things that may be 
just aspirational purchasing. But the interesting thing that has 
happened over the years is we have allowed the Internet retailer to 
have a different position when it comes to their tax liability.
  I talked to a lot of local businesses in Illinois, small businesses, 
businesses on Main Street. Some of them think things are getting better 
and I do too. They sense the worst may be behind us and the future is 
looking brighter. But at the same time, they share with me the 
frustration they have currently now with customers coming into their 
shops and businesses looking for everything from running shoes to 
sporting equipment--you name it--and then, just about the time when 
they have tried on the second or third pair of shoes, looked in the 
mirror, got everything squared away as to what they are going to buy, 
they sometimes pull out their phones, turn on an app, and take a 
picture of the barcode on the product.
  You see, there is an app which allows a person to find out where they 
can buy that very same product cheapest on the Internet. So here is the 
local retailer doing their part to make a sale, and it turns out they 
get nothing from the experience.
  What is the advantage that Internet sellers have over those who have 
businesses on streets and highways across America? One advantage 
relates to sales tax. In my home State of Illinois, the payment of 
sales tax on Internet purchases is voluntary and personal. If one does 
not declare it and pay it, it is not collected. We are supposed to pay 
it, but many people do not. So those selling on the Internet, subject 
to local sales tax, in fact are not collecting that sales tax. I think 
that can change and should.
  Becky Anderson owns Anderson Bookstores in Naperville, IL--a great 
little town. She described to me how she loses sales every day because 
consumers walk in, ask her questions, and then buy an item online from 
remote retailers because they do not collect sales tax.
  Becky understands most customers do not realize they do owe the sales 
tax to the State of Illinois and local units of the government. They 
say:

       This runaway train may undermine more than our bottom 
     lines. It's not a stretch to say entire Main Street districts 
     could disappear.

  That is Becky's conclusion after having watched what happens with 
these Internet sales not collecting sales tax.
  She talks about how a local shoestore in downtown Naperville was 
forced to close and lay off employees, strictly because of Internet 
sales. The local business owner, Michael Abt, president of Electronics, 
in Glenview, IL, described in detail how our current system results in 
a built-in price advantage for Internet retailers. Mike said:

       Oftentimes with consumer electronics, the profit margin is 
     10 percent or less. Abt collects 9.25 percent sales tax. When 
     an online competitor does not collect it and then offers free 
     shipping, it is a huge advantage for [his] competition.

  Local businesses will never be able to compete if we continue to 
provide a built-in price advantage for online retailers by exempting 
them from sales and use tax collection. There was a time, I guess--and 
I heard the argument here--that we did not consider the sales tax for 
online sales because, the argument was made, they may not survive; it 
is a fledgling industry.
  That day is long gone. They are certainly not fledgling; they are in 
full flight.
  Over the past decade, online retail has become an important part of 
American commerce. Online retail allows customers to compare prices, 
shop around right in the comfort of their living room. At the same 
time, local businesses such as Anderson Bookstores in Naperville 
compete with online retailers by trying to provide good service at the 
lowest prices they can. These local businesses also invest in our 
communities. They hire local workers. They pay local property taxes. 
They are involved in communities supporting baseball teams and charity 
efforts in their community. They are our neighbors and they deserve a 
fair shake.
  Last year, Senator Enzi, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and I joined 
in introducing the Marketplace Fairness Act, with seven additional 
cosponsors--Senators Tim Johnson, Boozman, Jack Reed, Blunt of 
Missouri, Whitehouse, Corker and Pryor. We recently added Senators 
Bennet and Cardin. This bipartisan group of Senators understands we 
have to do more to ensure a fair marketplace for American businesses. 
The bill will level the playing field for Main Street businesses and 
limit the current built-in price advantage given to online retailers. 
It allows States to treat brick and mortar retailers the same as online 
retailers by providing two streamlined approaches for States to require 
collection of both sales and use taxes.
  The bill also includes a small seller exemption that will ensure 
small online retailers are exempt from the requirement to collect sales 
and use taxes. The notion is that if Grandma Franken has an apple 
butter recipe and makes a few cases each year to the delight of all her 
neighbors, she will not be burdened with this responsibility of selling 
it online and collecting sales tax.
  Let me be clear. This bill does not impose any new taxes. This bill 
does not raise taxes, period. It does not amend the Internal Revenue 
Code at all. It simply is a collection issue that for too long has put 
local businesses at a disadvantage. The real job creators in America, 
many of them, are the small businesses in our communities that struggle 
to get by every day, and when they get better and they get well, 
America gets well. Now is the time to help these retailers.
  It also is going to help State and local budgets, those that are 
trying to make ends meet in a tough economy. I hope we can get this 
done and done quickly.
  One thing I would like to add. The largest online retailer in 
America, amazon.com, supports our legislation. We are not at war with 
online retailers. They have concluded it is best to have

[[Page 1041]]

a uniform, streamlined system that uses available software for 
collection from a retailer and distribution through the State 
departments of revenue. It is voluntary. We do not impose a mandate on 
any State to adopt this, although I think every one of them will, and 
this moves us finally in the direction of fairness--fairness not only 
for those who are doing the bricks and mortar sales but fairness for 
all customers and all retailers across America.
  I commend this bill to all colleagues. If we truly believe, as many 
of us have spoken time and again, in the value of small business to 
economic recovery, most small businesspeople will tell you this is a 
critical element in their competitive edge and their ability to hire 
more people and be able to be profitable all across the Nation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________