[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5994-6000]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 743, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 743) to restore States' sovereign rights to 
     enforce State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Enzi) amendment No. 741, of a perfecting nature.
       Durbin amendment No. 745 (to amendment No. 741), to change 
     the enactment date.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending on the floor is S. 743. This is a 
bill which, in its simplest terms, will allow the States to ask 
Internet retailers, when they sell in the State, to collect sales tax. 
Currently, every State requires consumers to pay the sales tax, but it 
is not collected at the point of purchase. So this legislation will 
respond to a 20-year-old Supreme Court decision that said to Congress: 
You have to write a law to do this. This is the law.
  Senator Enzi and I, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, as well as Senator Lamar 
Alexander, we have all worked together on this legislation on a 
bipartisan basis.
  This measure was before the Senate last week. It is not a long bill; 
it is 11 pages. It is certainly within the grasp of any Senator to 
secure and read it and understand it. It is very straightforward.
  We have had efforts made on the Senate floor to delay consideration 
of this measure. We have taken three votes on it over the past month or 
so. The first vote under the budget resolution was a generic vote: Do 
you support the idea or not? Seventy-five Senators voted in the 
affirmative--a dramatic commitment from the Democratic side and a 
majority commitment from the Republican side to this measure. We then 
faced a vote on cloture--in other words, closing down the debate--on 
the

[[Page 5995]]

motion to proceed. We had that vote on Monday. Seventy-four Senators 
voted to proceed. Yesterday, on the actual motion to proceed: 75 
Senators. So this is clearly an issue where a substantial majority of 
the Senate believes we should move forward and pass this legislation.
  We have invited our colleagues--Senator Enzi and I have--if they have 
amendments, to file their amendments. They have had 6 days--6 days--to 
prepare the amendments and file them. The deadline is an hour and a 
half from now for filing amendments. So far we have received 31 
amendments.
  We sat down last night and said: Let's pick a good number of these 
amendments. Call them. Let's debate them. Let's vote on them. Let's act 
like the Senate. Let's see how that works.
  We started to do that. We came up with a list. Included in that list 
are amendments being offered by people we know are going to vote 
against this bill, so they are not friendly amendments. They are 
adversarial amendments. But that is all right. Isn't that what we are 
here for--debate it out; express your point of view; we will express 
ours; let's vote. I think that is fair. No one can criticize us for not 
being open to that. We are not trying to fix the outcome. We are ready 
to bring this to full debate. But when we contacted the Senators who 
are opposed to the bill and said, call your amendments, they said, we 
are not ready.
  I wish those Senators who said they were not ready could meet the 
Senators we run into in the hall who say, when is this going to end, 
when can I go home, because the two of them need to get in 
conversation. We want to do this in a timely, thoughtful way because it 
is a critically important issue. But we cannot do it unless our 
colleagues will come to the floor of the Senate and offer their 
amendments.
  Yesterday we had one amendment we thought was simple and easy. It is 
an amendment that said: We will not impose across America a tax for you 
to use the Internet--the Internet Freedom Act it is called. It is 
bipartisan. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, a Democrat, and Senator 
Blunt of Missouri, a Republican, came together and offered to extend 
the current policy of the United States on Internet freedom.
  Senator Enzi and I looked at that and said: We can put that in this 
bill. That is something with which we agree. We are not imposing any 
new taxes in this bill--none. So that is certainly a statement of 
policy with which we would agree.
  We brought this to the floor, and a Senator from Oregon came and 
objected to considering that amendment yesterday. So yesterday, no 
amendments. Now we are told that as to any amendments we bring to the 
floor today, there will be more objections.
  I do not think this makes the Senate look very good. I do not think 
this is in the best interests of this institution nor our government. 
We were elected to roll up our sleeves and go to work and address the 
problems facing this country. We understand that with 100 people there 
will be differences of opinion. We are supposed to engage in civil 
debate on the floor and then vote. But to lunge from one filibuster to 
the next and have Members coming to the floor and objecting to 
amendments puts us in a terrible position.
  I have served in the minority, as Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi 
do at this point. The one thing you really want in the minority is a 
chance to offer an amendment, to express your point of view, even if 
you lose. Now we are offering that opportunity, and unfortunately there 
is a resistance to it. Well, we are going to try it. We are going to 
test it. If the people who are going to continue to try to block any 
debate on this bill want to come forward, I hope they will face 
questions from colleagues as to what their intent is.
  Ultimately, we will finish this bill before we go home. If it means 
staying through the weekend--if that satisfies some Members--we will do 
it. But it is a terrible waste of opportunity. We have gone 2 straight 
days with no votes on amendments. And Senators Enzi, Alexander, 
Heitkamp and I believe it is time for the Senate to be the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 3 times Senators have voted, either 
with 74 or 75 votes, in favor of this legislation--a majority of 
Democratic Senators and a majority of Republican Senators. On Monday we 
were ready for amendments, but the small group of Senators who oppose 
it objected. On Tuesday we asked to have time given back so we could 
begin amendments. There was an objection. On Wednesday the Senator from 
Arkansas asked for a 10-year moratorium on Internet taxes, and there 
was an objection. And we are ready today, as we will see.
  Sometimes we Republicans feel as though Democrats keep us from 
offering amendments. Whether that is ever true, this is different. In 
this case, Democrats and Republicans--a small group--are blocking the 
majority of us, Democrats and Republicans, who want to go forward with 
the bill and who have been ready to consider amendments since Monday.
  We respect the points of view of those 24 or 25 Senators who disagree 
with us, but with 3 votes of 74, 75 votes, can we not have our 
amendments, bring this to a conclusion, send it to the House of 
Representatives, and let it go through the process it needs to go 
through?
  So this is different. This is both sides--a small group--blocking 
amendments the large majority on each side wants to move forward with.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 771, 
offered on behalf of myself and Senator King, and I would ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am only doing it, I would advise my 
colleagues--who I know feel strongly about it--Chairman Baucus wanted 
to be able to address this issue. That is the purpose of my 
reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me express my frustration and dismay 
over the objection that has been lodged against considering a very 
reasonable amendment to this bill.
  This is a bipartisan amendment. It is offered by the Independent 
Senator from Maine, Mr. King, and me. It has widespread support. It is 
a very reasonable amendment that simply gives businesses more time to 
comply with the provisions of this bill. It is consistent with the 
purpose of this bill and does not undermine it in any way. It simply 
recognizes that 90 days is simply too short a period of time for 
implementation of the software and other changes that would be required 
under this legislation.
  I think there is, however, a broader issue. This is a bipartisan 
bill--a bill that I am a cosponsor of, a bill that has widespread 
support, a bill that the Governor of Maine strongly supports because of 
the revenue it would bring in that is now lost to the State even though 
it is owed to the State.
  It is a bill that has widespread support among Main Street retailers 
who see customers come into their stores, take up the time of their 
clerks, and then whip out an iPhone to order the exact same merchandise 
online solely for the purpose of evading the sales tax that is due on 
the item.
  So this bill is a matter of fairness. It imposes no new taxes. In 
fact, there is a prohibition on taxing the Internet. As Senator 
Alexander has pointed out and Senator Durbin has said--and Senator 
Enzi, who has worked so many years on this bill--this bill has 
widespread, bipartisan support.
  Here we are stymied by a small group of Members on both sides of the 
aisle

[[Page 5996]]

 who will not even allow us to debate and consider a bipartisan 
amendment that simply delays the effective date of this bill by a year 
to allow businesses more time to make the software changes they need to 
make in order to ensure they are in full compliance with the bill.
  We have reached a very disappointing and unsatisfactory result if 
that is where we are. If there is opposition to our amendment, I am 
sure the opponents would have every opportunity to speak against our 
amendment and to vote against our amendment. But to not allow our 
amendment to be considered, which is completely relevant to this bill, 
an amendment that simply alters the date of implementation, is beyond 
my comprehension. I do not understand it. I think it is wrong. I think 
it is what frustrates the American people. It is an example of the kind 
of gridlock that is very frustrating to the American public.
  The only good thing I can say about this gridlock is it is bipartisan 
in this case. But that is a very small comfort indeed. So, again, all 
our amendment would have done, had we been allowed to consider it, is 
put a 1-year delay in the final implementation and also say 
implementation could not begin during the retailers' busiest time of 
the year; that is, the holiday season.
  This was intended to provide adequate lead time for retailers to 
undertake the complex steps that may be needed: the software changes, 
the training, et cetera. Retailers are going to have to begin early 
anyway, but with this 1-year delay we know they will be prepared to 
fully implement the Marketplace Fairness Act.
  Again, it is very disappointing to me that this commonsense amendment 
that is designed to improve the underlying bill cannot be considered at 
this time. I have been very pleased to work with my colleague from 
Maine, Senator King, on this amendment. He may have some comments as 
well. I also wish to thank the sponsors of the bill for working very 
hard with us on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the comments 
from the senior Senator from Maine on this amendment. I consider it 
virtually a technical amendment. It simply changes the implementation 
date under the bill so that companies will have adequate time to be 
sure they integrate the software supplied by the States into their 
systems and also integrate the definition of which items in their 
inventory are covered and not covered according to different 
definitions across the country.
  As we know, the software is to be supplied by the States. This is 
simply, as I say, a change in the implementation date in order to 
ensure that our online retailers are able to serve their customers 
adequately and without any interruption of service or otherwise have 
problems.
  I too am puzzled by what is going on here. When I came to Washington 
in January, I knew in many cases the Senate had to get 60 votes in 
order to move forward with legislation under rule XXII. This is a piece 
of legislation that has actually had three votes so far. Each one has 
been between 70 and 75 votes. If we cannot do anything with a three-
quarters majority, then I think the American people are going to say: 
What gives? Nothing is going to happen even on a piece of legislation 
that gets over 70 votes on three consecutive times.
  I have listened to the debate. I have listened to the arguments from 
the Senators from three of the four States. I do think it is 
interesting--there are four States in this country that do not have 
sales taxes. Three of the four are strenuously objecting to this bill; 
one of them is not. In fact, one of the Senators from the State of 
Delaware indicated that he believed this could be an advantage to his 
State because people would come to Delaware rather than buy something 
online and avoid the sales tax in a neighboring State.
  There is nothing in this bill that will compel the citizens of Oregon 
or Montana or New Hampshire to pay a sales tax. Something has been 
argued that this is somehow coercive on companies in those States to 
collect the sales tax. I would respond by saying if they do not want to 
collect the sales tax, they do not have to sell into those States that 
have a sales tax. There is no coercion. They are voluntarily marketing 
into Maine or Vermont or Texas or wherever there is a sales tax. If 
they want to avoid the strictures of this bill, they can do so 
voluntarily.
  To me, this makes total common sense. I will conclude with a story 
that was in our Portland newspaper just this week with regard to this 
bill of a real-life company that I, in fact, shop at, Johnson Sporting 
Goods.
  The proprietress was talking about people coming into her store, 
looking at items, feeling them, trying them on, deciding if they liked 
them, and then walking out and buying the wetsuit or the scuba 
equipment or whatever it was online. She said: We have become a 
showroom for Internet marketers. The problem is if this keeps up, we 
are not going to be here anymore.
  It is just fundamentally unfair to our retail community in our towns, 
which make up the backbone of the commercial district in every town in 
America, that they are being put at a disadvantage, a 5- or 6- or 7- or 
whatever percent it is disadvantage with regard to the sale of 
products.
  I, frankly, am puzzled. I just do not understand the vehemence of the 
opposition from the nonsales-tax States. I guess in those States one 
cannot even utter the words ``sales tax,'' let alone do something that 
will not burden their citizens in any way, shape, or form except for 
the companies that will collect a sales tax under the software that is 
provided by the States. So I do not understand why we cannot move 
forward with these amendments.
  We are here, I thought, to do the Nation's business. I think we 
should do so. So I rise to support the amendment. I hope we can move to 
the consideration of the amendment and other amendments that will come 
forward and move this bill through the process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by 
the Senators from Maine. I think it makes a lot of sense. It is 
symbolic too. Here we have a bipartisan amendment, we have a Republican 
Senator and an Independent Senator. The Independent Senator is a former 
Governor, as I once was.
  The reason I support the amendment is because it gives more time for 
anybody who might be affected by this amendment to adjust to it. That 
is never a bad idea--almost never a bad idea in the Senate.
  It gets us to our goal a few months later than we had thought. It 
makes sure those who might be affected can adjust. Of course, many 
people who call my office are surprised to learn that it does not 
affect anyone unless they have revenues of more than $1 million a year. 
So about 99 percent of people who sell things online or in catalogs are 
not affected.
  Of course, it does not affect Internet taxes; we have a law against 
Internet taxes. In fact, another bipartisan amendment by the Senator 
from Arkansas and the Senator from Missouri was to extend the 10-year 
moratorium on Internet taxes. That was objected to.
  The Collins-King amendment is imminently reasonable. I think it 
strengthens the bill. It is offered in a good spirit. Some may wish to 
go faster, but I think it is sensible and reasonable. I fully support 
it.
  I would reiterate that we were ready to accept amendments on Monday, 
but there was an objection--not a partisan objection but by Democrats 
and Republicans, a small number.
  We were ready on Tuesday to go ahead with amendments, but there was 
an objection, a bipartisan objection to going forward. We were ready on 
Wednesday with a bipartisan proposal to put on the 10-year extension of 
the Internet tax, but there was an objection.
  This is like--I have used this before, but this is like joining the 
Grand Old Opry and not being allowed to sing. This is what we are 
supposed to do. We

[[Page 5997]]

are supposed to bring up these bills, consider reasonable amendments, 
and vote on them.
  We are at noon on Thursday. We have not been allowed to do what we 
could have finished on Tuesday. So I greatly respect the Senators on 
the other side. I know their feelings; we have strong feelings too. As 
a former Governor, I do not think it is any of Washington's business to 
continue to keep us from making decisions about our own taxes and tax 
structures. Some people say they do not trust the States. Most of the 
people in my State do not trust Washington to make decisions about 
spending. We do a heck of a lot better job of making decisions about 
taxes and spending and collections than people do here.
  So we pretty well made up our minds. Three times now we have had 74, 
75 votes for this bill. We are ready to proceed. We have several 
amendments that have been filed, some by those who oppose the bill. 
That is fine. Bring them up. Let's vote on them. They may make good 
sense, just like this amendment makes good sense.
  So I thank the Senators from Maine for being constructive, for making 
a commonsense proposal to the bill. I support it. I hope that very soon 
we can debate it and vote on it and finish this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I objected to the last amendment for a 
very simple reason. The author of the amendment is making my case. This 
amendment makes my case. What is my case? My case is this bill should 
go to committee. It has so many problems, unthought-through, unintended 
consequences. This amendment recognizes that. This amendment says 
delay; delay for a year. Why delay? Because there are so many problems, 
because there are so many problems.
  The way to solve the problem is for us to deal with the problem in 
committee. That is the solution. I have made that point many times, 
many different places: the floor of the Senate, different private 
meetings. Finally, people are starting to realize all of their problems 
with this bill. Slowly they are starting to read it. Slowly they are 
starting to think about it. Slowly it is starting to sink in: Oh, my 
gosh, I did not think of that. Oh, that problem too affects businesses, 
not just businesses in nonsales-tax States, businesses across the 
country, all cross the country.
  This amendment makes my case. This amendment seeking a 1-year delay 
makes my case that there must be problems; we have to delay this bill. 
That is the basic reason I think we should not pass this bill. We 
should send it to the committee.
  I pledge to Members, my colleagues, my friends, the Finance 
Committee, which I chair, will hold a markup on this bill in the next 
work period. I made that pledge. I made that pledge. We can work on all 
of the problems this bill creates and solve them the best we can during 
the markup.
  I have heard no good reason we should not go to the committee. This 
bill was placed straight on the floor calendar, no committee 
consideration, none whatsoever--none. The Committee of jurisdiction had 
no opportunity to look at this bill, none. I think it should, 
especially when I make a pledge that we will mark it up in the next 
work period after this next recess.
  What reasons have I heard why we should not do that? I have heard 
none whatsoever.
  All the reasons I have heard are: Well, gee, Senator, we asked to do 
this a while ago, several months ago. That is no answer. I say now we 
will do it. I, for the life of me, can't understand why we don't solve 
this in the right forum. The right forum is the committee of 
jurisdiction. We can't do this on the Senate floor without hearings, 
without consideration.
  Senators who have been here a couple of years know the good 
legislation we have passed around here is legislation from the 
committee, where staffs go over all the different amendments and they 
work things out. The Senators work things out, and they try to find 
compromises, solutions, not for the first time on the floor when the 
Senators make speeches. They don't think and look for solutions on the 
floor of the Senate. They just make speeches.
  I am suggesting the good place we don't make speeches is in the 
committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee, where we can work out 
some of these problems. That is the reason I have been objecting and 
will continue to object. This is a travesty, the way this bill is being 
considered in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I feel compelled to respond to the 
comments of my good friend and colleague from Montana. First, let me 
say I am sorry to learn of his decision to leave the Senate, to retire 
from the Senate, because I have enjoyed working with him over the 
years.
  I do want to make several points. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, who 
came to the Senate the same year I did in 1997, has been talking about 
this bill for at least a decade. He has introduced it many times 
before. There has been ample opportunity for there to be consideration 
by the committee, and the committee chose not to consider his bill. 
This is not a new concept in any way. It has been talked about and 
debated at length over the past decade.
  Moreover, I would note the amendment I have offered, along with my 
colleague from Maine, does not in any way change the basic thrust of 
this legislation. In fact, both Senator King and I are cosponsors of 
the underlying bill.
  If this bill were so problematic for retailers across the country, 
why would it have the support of so many retailers across the country? 
Why would it have the support of national organizations representing 
retailers across the country?
  This is not a complicated bill in concept. What it says is if a 
retailer is selling into another State, it needs to collect the sales 
tax and remit it to that State. That is not a complicated concept.
  This issue has been litigated before the Supreme Court, another 
indication it is not a new concept, that it has been carefully 
considered. The idea that somehow this bill has sprung out of nowhere 
without proper consideration is not supported by its long history.
  In fact, during the budget resolution when we voted on this measure 
and it received such a strong vote--I think it was something like 70 to 
75 votes--I went over to Mike Enzi and congratulated him because he 
finally had gotten a preliminary vote on legislation he had been 
working on for literally more than a decade.
  I don't think this is a complicated concept. It is not creating a new 
tax; it is not imposing a new tax; it is not taxing the Internet. All 
it is doing is making sure States that have sales taxes receive the 
revenue they are owed. That is not a complicated concept.
  Is it going to require retailers to make changes in their software, 
particularly large retailers that are selling all over the country? 
Keep in mind, this bill exempts small retailers. It exempts those with 
sales of under a million dollars, so they are not affected at all. Is 
it going to require some changes to be made in software and training by 
large retailers? Yes, it is. That is why we have offered this 
commonsense amendment to improve but not change the underlying bill 
that says rather than giving 90 days for businesses to comply with the 
sale, let's give them a year so they can fully get the software changes 
made and installed, their staff trained, and ensure full, complete, and 
accurate compliance. That is all the Collins-King amendment does. It 
does not in any way change the thrust of this bill or the underlying 
provisions of this bill. It simply allows more time for compliance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, first let me join the Senator from 
Maine in expressing to the Senator from Montana my regret that he is 
retiring. He has had a long and distinguished career here, and I have 
enjoyed working with him and look forward to working with him the rest 
of this year and next year. He has a history of independent thinking 
and working across

[[Page 5998]]

party lines, which is valuable in the Senate.
  On the point the Senator from Maine made--and I see the Senator from 
Montana may want to say something, so I will be brief. The bill as 
proposed, the Marketplace Fairness Act, the pending act, has a 6-month 
implementation period. This would add 6 months to that so there would 
be a total of a year for implementation of the bill. This is a 
reasonable period of time.
  As far as the bill going to Finance Committee, it has been in the 
Finance Committee. Nothing would have pleased the sponsor of the bill 
more than for the chairman and other members of the committee to bring 
the bill up, mark it up, and send it to the floor, but they didn't do 
that.
  As Senator Collins said, Senator Enzi has been introducing different 
bills for the last decade or so. But he introduced this very basic 
bill, about 11 or 12 pages, S. 1832, on November 9, 2011. It was 
referred to the Finance Committee. In April of 2012 there was a Finance 
Committee hearing on State and local tax issues, including the 
Marketplace Fairness Act. The Senator from Montana referred to that in 
his remarks the other day, so there was some other hearing on this very 
bill in April of 2012. That is a year ago.
  Then the Senate Commerce Committee in August held a full hearing on 
this bill involving many Senators with a lot of testimony, and I was 
there. It is certainly arguable that the Commerce Committee is at least 
as involved in this issue as the Finance Committee, because while the 
Parliamentarian has sent it to the Finance Committee, it has nothing to 
do with the Tax Code, zero. In any event, that is where it has been.
  In this Congress, the Marketplace Fairness Act was introduced, this 
very 11-page bill, in the second month of this year and referred to the 
Finance Committee. Sixteen Senators have asked for it to be heard and 
marked up.
  It is certainly the prerogative of the chairman to decide in a busy 
committee what he has time to do and not to do. It certainly seemed to 
everyone that the Finance Committee had become a dungeon for the bill 
and not a place where it was likely to ever come out. I believe that is 
exactly why rule XIV is in the Senate rules, to allow the majority 
leader to take a bill, bypass the committee, and bring it to the floor. 
One that has had this much thought, this much consideration, is an 
excellent candidate for that.
  The cure for that, it seems to me, is to take these amendments and 
work them through, consider them on the floor, debate them, vote them, 
and continue the process. Send the bill to the House and let the House 
do what it will, have a conference if it is necessary. There are plenty 
of opportunities to deal with the bill.
  The point is the Finance Committee ought to have the bill. The 
Finance Committee has had the bill. The Finance Committee wouldn't act 
on the bill. Now we are past the point of sending it back to the 
Finance Committee. It is before us. It has votes of 74 or 75 Members of 
the Senate. It has the majority of each side. We have been ready ever 
since Monday to consider the amendments that have been offered to the 
bill by both proponents and opponents of the legislation.
  I would hope the Senators who oppose the bill will not object to the 
amendments but will participate in the process and allow us to move 
forward on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. First, I want to deeply thank my two colleagues who 
previously spoke, Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Alexander of 
Tennessee, for their nice, warm compliments. I deeply appreciate that. 
It means a lot to me because they are both very fine Senators. They are 
terrific, as a matter of fact.
  A couple of points to clear the record. Senator Collins said Senator 
Enzi has been working on this bill for about a decade. That is not 
accurate. There was an earlier bill called the streamline act, or 
something like that. I have forgotten what it was. It was an attempt at 
a compact among States to address this issue. They worked on it and 
worked on it and worked on it for close to a decade and then couldn't 
agree. I think 24 States agreed, the remaining States did not agree, so 
that was the end of that.
  This bill is to ram through what other States would not agree to and 
to try to find ``the lowest common denominator.'' That is basically 
what this bill is, a new bill. This bill has had, to my knowledge, no 
vetting at all by any committee in any significant way.
  This bill has been referred to the Finance Committee. As the Senator 
from Tennessee points out, the Finance Committee has not reported out 
the bill. That is true. Frankly, we know one good reason why it hasn't 
is because we have been meeting very frequently at the staff levels. My 
staff of the Finance Committee with the staffs of those who are 
sponsors of the bill are working out different potential and actual 
complexities and problems of the bill. There have been a lot of 
meetings.
  I asked my staff, if someone were to be a fly on the wall, were those 
meetings in good faith? They were in good faith to try to find the 
answers to the questions. The answer is yes. That is their belief. 
There have been a lot of meetings to try to work out some of these 
problems which clearly exist.
  Obviously one big problem is represented by the amendment that has 
been--not offered but consent was asked that it could be offered, 
asking for a 9-month delay. I cannot think of any reason for a 9-month 
delay except to say, hey, 90 days isn't working. That is just an 
example of some of the problems and imperfections of this bill that 
could have been addressed in committee, and there are many of them. 
But, no, this bill didn't go to committee.
  I stand here again and tell the world, the Senate Finance Committee 
will report out this bill in the next work period if it has an 
opportunity to do so and work out all of these different problems, 
rather than trying to willy-nilly ram this through the floor and 
preventing changes from being corrected in a good, solid way.
  Let me make a prediction. Those who are for ramming this bill on the 
floor without letting it go to committee are doing themselves a 
disservice, because it makes it more likely this bill will not become 
law. If the proponents of this bill want this legislation to become 
law, what they should have done is say yes, let's go to the Finance 
Committee; the chairman of the Finance Committee has agreed to take it 
up; he has agreed publicly to markup, not just a hearing. We have had a 
hearing already. We would have a markup on this bill in the next work 
period. Then the differences would be worked out and some of the 
problems solved. Then the bill comes to the floor, and it will not be 
opposed, probably, at least not in the same way it is opposed now. Then 
it will more than likely be passed by the other body or at least worked 
through the other body. That is the better way to do it.
  This way, not going to committee and straight to the floor, reduces 
the probability that this bill is going to become law. I, frankly, am 
going to object to other amendments because I do not believe the proper 
way to do legislation is only on the floor and not go through the 
proper development in committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, this is a challenge the States have 
been confronted with since 1992--a challenge of trying to get equity 
for Main Street businesses. The Supreme Court told us that Congress is 
best equipped to make a determination on how we implement something 
that would level the playing fields for Main Street businesses under 
our notion of what constitutes appropriate regulation and controls of 
interstate commerce.
  The challenge was passed over 20 years ago to Congress, and the Main 
Street businesses have been waiting for 20 years for equity, for 
fairness, and for a system that does not discriminate against them. 
Only in Washington, DC, could waiting 20 years for a solution we are 
debating today be considered ramming something through Congress.

[[Page 5999]]

Only in Washington, DC, can a 20-year delay for equity and justice and 
fairness in our tax policy be considered too soon for a debate.
  This is an 11-page bill. This is a very simple bill. I can attest, 
having been here only a short period of time, to the fact that most 
Senators have very capable staff. Quite honestly, most Senators have an 
enormous capacity to read this 11-page bill, understand it, and 
appreciate what the bill says and to make a determination. In fact, 
this concept--just in concept--received an overwhelming vote from this 
body. This bill, in consideration now in two votes, has received an 
overwhelming show of support because colleagues know their Main Street 
businesses have waited too long. They know we need to accomplish 
something. We need to move forward.
  We need to do what is easy because we have so many hard things to do 
in the Congress. We have a budget out of control, we have an energy 
policy we need to prepare for the future, and we have challenges with 
sequestration and making sure we are making the right investments in 
our future. We have big issues. I would suggest that what we are 
looking at, albeit a small issue in this body, is a big issue for Main 
Street businesses.
  We heard from a woman just a couple days ago--a woman named Teresa--
who runs a little pet food store. She has trained all of her people on 
what is great nutrition. So when clients or customers come in, she can 
talk about the age of their pets, she can talk about what the 
nutritional problems are and give them advice and then, she said, only 
to watch them walk out the door with that advice and order that product 
on the Internet.
  One might say that is competition or whatever. But she is not afraid 
of competition. Her challenge is that if they buy in her store, the 
sales tax her city and State will charge is 9\1/2\ percent. So she is 
immediately at a 9\1/2\-percent disadvantage. Yet they use her 
expertise.
  I would like someone to explain to me how we can't be moved by a 
story such as that and to correct the inequity; how we can't be 
sophisticated enough as legislators to read an 11-page bill and 
understand what it says with all the staffing we have.
  I am confident, as we go forward, we are doing what is right. Any 
State that doesn't want to participate, any State that doesn't want to 
collect remote sales tax in this fashion, either streamlined or under 
the alternative process provided in the bill, does not have to pursue 
this collection mechanism. They can continue to do what they are doing.
  The bill talks about a remote seller who has sales over $1 million. 
This young woman said to us, when she was talking about her pet store, 
that she also runs a little online business. We asked: How would you 
feel? She said: I could only hope for $1 million of online sales. I 
would be glad to collect the tax if that was my business. She is a 
small businesswoman.
  So if we can't bring equity now, then when? We have been waiting 20 
years. We have an opportunity to show this country and show those Main 
Street businesses, show our friends and neighbors who support the 
Little League, who support our school newspapers, who support our 
communities, that someone in this body cares. In fact, the majority of 
people in this body cares. In fact, a supermajority of this body cares, 
and we are listening to you. Maybe, in some small way--in some very 
small way--we will have told them Washington is still a place where 
people will listen and respond and actually get something done. That is 
what we are trying to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for her comments and her involvement for over 20 years. I feel 
like a newcomer, with just the 12 years I have been trying to get this 
passed. Wyoming has recognized the need for it and has had the desire 
for it. We were one of the first to join the streamlined sales tax 
effort, and I think we were joined by a number of our surrounding 
States. The purpose of that, of course, was to make it simpler so it 
would be easier for people to collect the tax.
  I wish to congratulate the Senators from Maine for putting forward 
what I consider to be kind of a phase-in part. Of course, there are a 
lot of people who would like to have it done a lot faster than that, 
but this would allow 1 year for people to get their program up and 
running. Part of that time would be taken by the free software that has 
to come from the States. It will take them a while to get that 
together, although everybody is hearing from eBay a little bit, and 
eBay already has one of those sales tax programs. It costs 15 bucks a 
month if you want to collect sales tax in the States, so it isn't like 
it is something impossible.
  I know L.L.Bean is going through a major computer switchover right 
now, so they know how difficult that is, and if it were compounded at 
the same time by having the sales tax collected, it could create some 
difficulties. In checking around, we have gotten the suggestion there 
be 1 year allowed before they had to start collecting the taxes.
  There is another small provision that says from October 31 through 
December 31 there wouldn't be a conversion because that is the 
Christmas season. In retail, that is the big season. If they can't 
concentrate on their customers at that point in time, they are not 
going to make their money. It makes the whole year just in those couple 
of months there. So there is an exclusion the program wouldn't go into 
effect during that period of time.
  So there is this kind of a phase-in for everybody to get everything 
ready. I know it is a lot more time than what States would like to 
have. They would like to begin collecting the taxes in 90 days, if they 
were able to get their program in place in 90 days. But we think that 
is reasonable. They brought that to the floor, but it was objected to 
even getting to debate it. So we don't get to vote on that.
  Around here a lot of times people say: It is a filibuster if you 
don't get to, and if there is cloture, then everybody ought to vote 
against cloture until everybody gets their amendments. How can you do 
your amendments if one person can object--and has. I think there would 
probably be three or four who would object, maybe six or eight who 
would object. But it is hard to do the amendments, and that should 
definitely not be the reason for anybody to vote against final cloture 
on this bill and get it enacted. Hopefully, we can still get some 
amendments through the process. Anything that is germane after cloture 
can still be voted on.
  I know there are a lot of proposals out there. Some of those 
proposals, of course, deal with something other than what would be 
germane to this bill. There would be major changes in the tax structure 
in other ways. We have tried to keep this to an 11-page bill. We tried 
to keep it simple, keep it to one topic. It is something anybody can 
read and understand. In fact, I don't remember a bill that has had 
language quite as clear.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for all his 
concentration. He looked at the 80-plus page bill we had, which had a 
lot more stuff in it, and said why don't we make this into a States 
rights bill. Once we took that approach to it, it made all the language 
much simpler. We just needed some basics for them to have to 
participate, and so that is why it is an 11-page bill. We will not see 
an 11-page bill come through here very often. I would guess some of the 
amendments being proposed--that have nothing to do with the collection 
of sales tax--are probably more extensive in pages than what this bill 
is.
  We are hoping people will stick to germane and relevant--or at least 
relevant; that is a little broader than germane, and we can do some 
amendments.
  But if there is going to be an objection--and I was just in a meeting 
where I was assured this is going to happen, and there is going to be 
an objection every time, no matter what the amendment is--I am very 
disappointed in that.

[[Page 6000]]

  I do want to point out there is a small seller exemption. If you are 
a retailer and you do less than $1 million of sales online during a 
year, you don't come under this bill. You don't do anything different 
than what you are doing right now. For a lot of small businesses, $1 
million would be a lot of money. I have heard some proposals that maybe 
we go to $10 million or $20 million. That affects some big retailers 
that don't want to do it. But to small retailers, $1 million is a lot 
of sales when it is just the ones that are done online. We are not 
talking about their total sales--what they do in their stores. We are 
just talking about the ones where they put up their Web site and they 
get orders and they ship out those orders. If that exceeds $1 million, 
the next year they would have to start collecting it.
  So not only, with the Collins amendment, would there be 1 year built 
into the time before they would have to start doing it, there would 
also be another year before they would hit the $1 million, and if they 
do not hit the $1 million, then they have another year and another year 
and another year until they do. Of course, having been a small 
businessman, I am pulling for all of them to exceed $1 million.
  Most small businesses I know would be so tickled to hit $1 million 
they would think maybe this wouldn't be such a bad deal. This is 
definitely giving some emphasis to online sales. It is much easier now 
to get a Web site. In fact, the Small Business Administration has been 
going from State to State to State and providing people who will do 
free Web sites for people who attend a seminar on how to do online 
sales. I commend the Small Business Administration for doing that. I 
think it has helped a number of businesses that haven't been able to 
expand beyond the few thousand dollars they are selling in their own 
stores to increase their sales. We hope everybody gets to exceed $1 
million.
  There is another part of that $1 million that is kind of interesting. 
If you are a nursery--and we heard an example of a nursery last night--
and you are doing big sales, the chances are pretty good some of those 
big sales are to other nurseries. If a product is sold to somebody else 
to be resold, there isn't a sales tax. So that wouldn't count in the $1 
million.
  We did hear an example during the press conference of a contractor in 
a State and the other contractor got all his stuff online and from out 
of State and on a $150,000 contract was able to undercut him by 10 
percent. It was just a $150,000 project--a category that small 
businessmen specialize in--but he was beat out by an out-of-State 
person who didn't pay sales tax on the products they were bringing into 
the State and using in construction.
  So we do have a small seller exemption. There is also simplification 
in the bill, and I would be happy to go through that. We haven't had 
any suggestions for more simplification, at least from those who 
understand what the simplification is. One of the reasons that is 
fairly simple now is because computers have come a long way. I don't 
know how many people here have purchased something online, but when you 
do, you put in your address where you want something shipped, and when 
you go over to see what the bill is going to be, not only will there be 
the price of the product, but there will be a sales tax. In a number of 
States, people have volunteered to collect it, and for the number of 
people who have volunteered to collect it, we really appreciate that.
  I cannot believe that Senator Collins' request to bring up an 
amendment that would allow a phase-in, that would give everybody extra 
time, would be objected to, but, as I said, when we checked we found 
out that everything is going to be objected to, which will bring us to 
a cloture vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I know the Senator from Louisiana is 
coming. When he comes, I will be through.
  I say to the Senator from Wyoming who just said that apparently there 
is an intention to object to any amendment, just to review, we started 
Monday.
  We could have started amendments Monday if there were no objection, 
but there were objections, bipartisan objection.
  On Tuesday we said that instead of going the full 30 hours of debate, 
let's give the time back and let's start the amendments. Bipartisan 
objection.
  On Wednesday we brought up the bipartisan proposal of Senator Blunt 
and Senator Pryor to extend the moratorium on the Internet tax. There 
is already a moratorium on taxing the Internet. You cannot have it. 
That is the law. We were going to extend it for 10 years. Objection.
  Then today Senator Collins and Senator King say: Instead of 
implementing this in 6 months, let's do it in a year. Objection.
  If it continues this way--and I say to the Senator from Wyoming, this 
is the way I figure the procedure--if there is no consent, always 
objection to any amendment from both a few Republicans and a few 
Democrats, then we will have a vote on cloture tomorrow. That would be 
tomorrow afternoon, I guess--tomorrow morning. Probably for the fourth 
time, 74 or 75 of us will vote for the Marketplace Fairness Act. Then 
we will stay here until Saturday afternoon for the full 30 hours, and 
we will have a vote on the two amendments and final passage. That will 
be Saturday afternoon. And probably another 74 or 75 votes for that, I 
hope. That is what will happen if a few Democrats and a few Republicans 
continue to say: No amendments.
  I want to make sure no one on our side of the aisle stands up and 
says they, the Democrats, are blocking amendments, because they are 
not. Most Democrats and most Republicans want to offer and vote on 
amendments. A few Democrats and a few Republicans say no. I believe 
that is where we are procedurally, if that persists.
  I completely respect the point of view of other Senators. I never 
question a Senator's vote. That is his or her prerogative, and it is 
their prerogative to keep us here until Saturday afternoon if that is 
what they wish to do. But that is not really a very good way for the 
Senate to work when we have three-fourths of us, a majority on both 
sides of the aisle, who are for something and we are ready to move 
through it with amendments and improvements and debates. This is not a 
good procedure, but it is procedure.
  This is the season for parades in Tennessee. On weekends and Fridays, 
I go home. I have a rule of thumb: Walk in parades. I put on my red-
and-black plaid shirt that I walked across Tennessee in. I walked in 
the Saint Patrick's Day parade in Erin. I walked in the Mule Day parade 
in Columbia--100,000 people there, lots of mules there. I always try to 
walk at the front of the Mule Day parade for obvious reasons. And 
tomorrow I was looking forward to walking in the parade at the Paris 
Fish Fry. But if we continue to object to every amendment to this bill, 
I will not get to walk in the Paris Fish Fry tomorrow, but we will pass 
the bill on Saturday, and I suspect we will pass it with 74 to 75 
votes.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________