Floor Statements

Mr. President, when my colleagues and I went to college, things were a lot different. We took out loans, but those loans were manageable, and there were jobs waiting after graduation. Today, too often, that's simply not the case. In fact, the majority of students today will leave school weighed down with more than $26,000 in debt and will attempt to enter a labor market in an environment where there are more unemployed Americans than there are jobs available.

For the first time in our Nation's history, student loan debt exceeds credit card debt and now totals over $1 trillion.

James Garfield once said, ``Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.'' He was right. Investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility and breaks down class structures. A highly skilled and educated workforce is the basis for any healthy economy. It is the foundation of our country's future.

In nearly every financial decision Americans make, individuals and families try to evaluate the economic value of that decision. Like prospective homebuyers who inspect and assess the potential value of their future home, students should be able to compare colleges and programs based on what the likely return on their investment will be.

Our capital markets work best when there is transparency so we can accurately measure the value of what we choose to invest in. We saw what happens when this is not the case with the burst of the housing bubble. Our economy is still struggling to recover from the mortgage crisis. Misinformed consumers bought a product based on misleading information and, often times, fell victim to bad loans offered by predatory lenders.

Consumers must know what they can expect from their investments. Similarly, students are entitled to know the value of their education before they borrow tens of thousands of dollars from banks and the government to finance their future.

Right now, consumers don't have this information. It is unavailable to students and families who are making critical decisions that will impact not only their future, both their financial future and career path, but also the collective future of our country. That is why today, Senator Rubio, Senator Warner and I are introducing an updated version of the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act which will help inform consumers and prevent market failures.

This proposal would ensure future students and their families can make well-informed decisions by creating a market in which specific schools and specific programs can be evaluated based on the average annual earnings and employment outcomes of graduates; rates of remedial enrollment and success of students that participate in remedial education; the percent of students that receive Federal, State, and institutional grant aid or loans; the average amount of total Federal loan debt of students upon graduation; the average amount of total Federal loan debt for students that do not complete a program; transfer success rates; and rates at which students continue on to higher levels of education.

The Department of Education has created a College Scorecard which is a step in the right direction. The Scorecard, however, does not fully capture any of the metrics outlined above and includes no information to prospective students to evaluate the economic returns of their program of study. The Wyden-Rubio-Warner bill generates this critical information.

Markets fail when there is too little information and until now, it has been impossible to ``Collect this data in a cost-effective way while ensuring student privacy.

This proposal makes it possible to secure a return on investment for students, parents, policy makers, and taxpayers while creating a workforce that meets the demands of today's businesses and ensures that American workers can successfully compete in the global economy.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a meeting of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been scheduled to discuss natural gas issues. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum to explore what the next applications are for natural gas and how this new demand will be met. Pipeline infrastructure and increased use of natural gas in the transportation sector will be specific points of interest.

Because of the limited time available for the forum, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to lauren_goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224-4971 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The business meeting will be held on Thursday, May 16, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Because of the limited time available for the business meeting, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the business meeting record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, today the Senate is voting on whether to take a few more inches off the little guy. I say that because we can tell what this debate is all about by looking at the morning newspaper. All over those newspapers we saw ads taken out by some of the biggest businesses in the country. It is pretty easy to see why. It is because with this vote for the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, what we have is big businesses being given the ability to force--force, mind you-- new regulations onto the startups, onto the small businesses. That is what this bill has always been about.

The big businesses have physical presence. They already pay taxes. The people whom we have said we care about, for the last 15 years, are the startups, the people who are just trying to get off the ground, who have the dream of one day being big. With this proposal that we will vote on in an hour, I fear what we are going to do is crush a lot of those startups, a lot of those small businesses, because not only will they have new regulations,

those small businesses will have new legal regimes, new audits by out- of-State regulators, new legislators, new Governors, new court systems, new accountants, new software, new consultants, and new lawyers. What I hope we will do is ensure, as this process goes forward, that we truly think through the implications of what is being done because on every count it is coercive and discriminatory in nature. It, in fact, gives a leg up to foreign retailers. It, in effect, repudiates a lot of what we have done over the last 15 years to build a sensible policy that will ensure what I call prosperity for both bricks and clicks.

I am sure that is what the Presiding Officer of the Senate wants. It is what we want in Oregon. We want our brick-and-mortar stores to prosper. We want our online stores to prosper. What this bill does is it precipitously overturns the law of the land, the law of the land upheld by the Supreme Court. It would, in unprecedented fashion, stipulate that State and local governments have taxing authorities over businesses that are located thousands and thousands of miles away.

The sponsors are quick to point out that the Court allowed that Congress could enact this sort of extraterritorial taxation. But as the Senate has seen again and again, just because government can doesn't mean government should.

We are going to continue this debate. It will not be done today. One of the central discussion points in this debate going forward will be the damage this bill, in its present form, does to the idea of State sovereignty. Proponents of the bill say the measure is about promoting States rights, but the reality is it is a coercive affront to State sovereignty. If any State does not wish to subject their business to out-of-State government tax collectors, the MFA tells them in effect: Get lost. The MFA enables the State of Indiana or the State of South Dakota to require online businesses located in New Hampshire to collect sales taxes on their behalf. I will repeat that. This so-called Marketplace Fairness Act could require New Hampshire, a State that does not have a sales tax--require New Hampshire businesses to collect sales taxes for goods and services provided to consumers in Indiana and South Dakota and send that money to those States. It enables California and New York to collect taxes from businesses located in Florida or Texas.

Finally, since I know we are in morning business, I think this steers the Internet toward a dangerous path. It would, in effect, endorse the notion that Internet entities should be required to enforce laws outside their home jurisdiction. Foreign countries have long pressed that notion. Foreign countries have specifically pushed that notion, that the Internet ought to cede to their control. As it is already, many countries are seeking to put the United Nations in charge of the Internet's regulator-in-chief, and essentially, if we look at the philosophical foundation of this proposal, it endorses that world view.

The Senate is being asked to consider schemes to allow States and localities to essentially nationalize their taxes, but tomorrow the Senate may be asked to consider similar schemes to enforce law and regulations. I will tell you what truly concerns me about this is it could be laws and regulations about content and other issues that are important to the powerful and well-connected. Make no mistake about it, that is who is pushing this bill today.

Open those morning newspapers and it was not the little guy, the person who does not have PACs and big political committees who was buying ads in the morning newspapers, it was the powerful and the well- connected. It seems to me the last thing this body should do is jeopardize the democratizing power of the Internet and technology through legislation such as this.

I believe the substance of this bill is deeply flawed. I know there have been efforts to improve it.

I see my colleague from Illinois. He wanted to take the bill I wrote years ago, the Internet tax freedom legislation, along with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and he wanted to put it into this bill. The Internet Tax Freedom Act runs contrary to this bill because this bill allows discrimination.

It specifically allows online retailers to do things that would not be required for offline retailers. The offline retailer doesn't have to chase somebody across the country and try to figure out where they are going to consume a particular product. We ask for things from online retailers that we do not ask from offline retailers.

I understand why the Senator from Illinois wanted to take a bill that has been a big success for both bricks-and-clicks retailers and put it into this bill. In effect, I compared it to trying to dump sugar into a very bitter cup of coffee.

We cannot get healthy with this bill in its present form. It is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. This debate is going to continue.

I urge colleagues to vote no on the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 783, the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by email to danielle deraney@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Vickie Gunderson at (202) 224-5479 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

Reserving the right to object.

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.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Madam President, over the last few days, I have spent a good chunk of my waking hours trying to find some common ground, some opportunity to bring both sides together. I have repeatedly put specifics on paper and provided those specifics to the proponents of this legislation. By and large--and I believe there is a little bit of a Senate code when one talks around here--the response has been: They have 75 votes, and that is kind of it. But I have been trying to deal with the issues that have been raised.

For example, my colleague from Illinois sincerely believes that unless Oregon's small businesses are not coerced into enforcing out-of- state laws, that Oregon is going to become a small business haven. He says Oregon has to be coerced by this bill or it is going to be a small business haven. I would just say to my colleagues that is not the reality of what we see in the Pacific Northwest every day.

Washington State has a sales tax. Oregon does not have a sales tax. So if my colleague from Illinois was right, we would be seeing moving vans all the time coming across the borders from Washington State to Oregon because somehow Oregon was going to be an Internet tax haven.

We all know States rights means States take different approaches with respect to this issue. To me, what we ought to be looking at are approaches that bring people together. So I offered Senator Durbin a chance to test out this question of whether Oregon would be an Internet tax haven and try it out for a period of time. That was unacceptable.

So now this amendment includes the Pryor-Blunt legislation, which, for example, says we ought to reauthorize the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Colleagues, I wrote that legislation. It says in section 2 you can't have discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The Internet tax freedom proposal Senator Durbin seeks to include in his base bill is basically trying to add some sugar into a very bitter cup of coffee. He is taking our legislation, which has been a real boost for the economy, and trying to put it into this very bitter cup of coffee that is his legislation.

I just don't think that makes a lot of sense. This bill is going to make it possible--the base bill--for discriminatory treatment of electronic commerce because online retailers in communities across the country are going to be subjected to burdens that brick-and-mortar retailers would not be subject to.

I know my colleague from Montana wishes to speak on this as well, but I would just close by saying I will have to object to the Senator's request because this particular amendment, including the bill I wrote, in effect, is akin to adding sugar to the bitter cup of coffee. The base bill offered by the proponents undermines the Internet Tax Freedom Act by allowing the very discrimination on electronic commerce the Internet Tax Freedom Act was all about.

This effort needs more time to bring about some common ground. I will close with this. Our technology policy over the last few years has been built on three kinds of principles:

No. 1, we would take voluntary steps. We wouldn't use coercion. This bill uses coercion. In fact, it was the voluntary steps, starting with some of the first laws that encouraged investment in social media, that were so important. This bill moves away from any semblance of voluntariness.

No. 2, I have outlined the discriminatory aspect of the legislation where we are going to have brick-and-mortar retailers not have to do certain things that online people do.

Finally, No. 3, what is just breathtaking is this gives foreign retailers a leg up on a Montana business, on an Oregon business, and, frankly, it gives a leg up on every business in the United States because the foreign retailer will not be subjected to what a business in our country is subjected to.

I know my colleague from Montana wants to speak on this issue as well, so I am going to maintain my reservation

so my colleague can speak, but I will have to object.

I object.

Mr. President, I would like to advise you that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Wednesday, May 8, 2013 at 11:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 434, to authorize and implement the water rights compact among the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and the State of Montana, and for other purposes, and S. 611, to make a technical amendment to the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area Act, and for other purposes.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I do this to have a colloquy with my friend from Arkansas. I want him to understand that I have stayed off the floor of this body for well over 1 day for the sole purpose of trying to see if we can bring both sides together on this issue. I think that is important, and I have already acknowledged I am willing to look at how we could bring both sides together, recognizing the Quill decision.

As I have already said, I have looked at compacts between States and things of this nature, and I have made repeated offers to the advocates of this bill, offering specifics on paper, and essentially nothing is offered in return other than: We have the votes and we are going to coerce you, as Oregonians, to go along with this.

What I wish to do just for a moment is explain why I have to object. I think the Senator knows I authored the Internet tax freedom bill in the Senate back in 1998, and I did it because I thought it was important to have the defense shield against potentially thousands of taxing jurisdictions singling out the Internet for these kinds of taxes. Regrettably, the underlying bill is going to be a targeted strike on the Internet. It is not going to be a defense shield. It would, as it stands today, serve as an amendment that would undercut what we sought to do back in 1998.

As the original author here, I am looking forward to working with the Senator under any circumstance to reauthorize a law that I think has worked. All the law says is you have to do offline what you do online. If we boil it down, it is a nondiscrimination law. This comes up the next year, and the Commerce and Finance Committees both have interests in this. We have always worked cooperatively in these areas. I remember our experience together on nanotechnology.

So I just have to say I am going to have to object at this time, but I am very interested in working with my colleague, with Senator Durbin, and Senator Blunt, who was just here, to come up with an arrangement that goes to the heart of this question; that is, should States such as Oregon be coerced, required to collect these online taxes for States that are thousands of miles away. The refrain throughout this whole discussion has been this is a States rights bill.

I respect that, but what it translates into is folks say they are for States rights if they think the State is right and the State is willing to go along with this particular approach that has come out of Washington, DC, which is they would be coerced into collecting these sales taxes for jurisdictions from thousands of miles away. In some cases--New Hampshire and other places have been making this point as well--it would be discriminatory because the online sector would be subjected to requirements that were not required of brick-and-mortar retailers. Again, this undermines our vision for the tech sector, which has been about bricks and clicks. We want both the brick-and-mortar retailers and the online people to do well. I know the Senator from Arkansas agrees with that as well.

So I haven't said anything on the floor of this body on a matter my constituents feel very strongly about for going on 2 days, until just now, solely for purposes of working with my friend from Arkansas and the distinguished leader from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and I will continue to do that. But at the end of the day, States rights, to some extent, has to have an element of voluntariness. If States rights has no element of voluntary judgments by States, it is pretty hard to say a State has any rights. The State truly is going to be coerced when we have reached the point, as I would characterize it, where we are going to say in Washington, DC, we believe in States rights if we think the State is right and they are going to go along with the approach we have dictated.

In my part of the world, to show the irony of this situation, Washington State has a sales tax. Oregon does not have a sales tax. There are differential tax considerations in both jurisdictions, and we often make agreements in terms of how we do business. So we have shown it is possible to deal with this issue, and I want my colleague from Arkansas and my friend from Illinois to know I am willing to set aside absolutely everything and work around the clock to see if we can find some common ground, with my theory being it is hard to say it is a States rights approach if a State is unable to have any element in the process with respect to its own judgment, its voluntary judgment, about what it wants to do.

So I object at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to pose a question to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, if I would be able to engage the Senator from Oklahoma, with his leave, I could take about 5 minutes or so--no more--to respond to the points Senator Durbin has made. That would be the end of my time, and I believe the Senator from Oklahoma would be next.

Mr. President, very briefly to respond to comments made by my friend from Illinois, this legislation has nothing to do with Nike. Nike of course is a very large company and has stores and trucks and a physical presence all over the United States. They pay taxes because of that physical presence under the Quill decision. So the comments by my colleague from Illinois are very unfortunate, because they misstate what this debate is all about.

This debate is about the little guy.

Later on this afternoon, Senator Merkley and I are going to come to the floor of the Senate and actually read accounts from small businesses here in our State. They are people who don't have a physical presence all over the country, and they are scratching their heads this afternoon and they are saying to themselves, How in the world are we possibly going to be able to comply with this, because in a difficult economy, we are barely able to make ends meet. We are going to have to go out and spend time and money and staff figuring out how to do this.

That is what this is about. Are we going to take something like our current policy--which is the defensive shield against discriminatory treatment from these tech-based online businesses--and turn it into a targeted strike on them, which this legislation does, or are we going to work together, which is what I have tried to do pretty much nonstop since Monday, to see if we can find some kind of common ground? Part of the challenge is we have to get some equity even in terms of the amendments, because it looks as though one side is getting to offer theirs and another side may be foreclosed.

I am going to continue to try to reach out to colleagues on both sides of this debate. But I appreciate very much the courtesy of my friend from Oklahoma, because I had to clarify that this amendment is about the small, innovation-oriented businesses that we think are the future and the center of this debate since it got going. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I think for the next half hour Senator Merkley and I are going to have the opportunity to outline specifically how this affects small businesses in the real world. That has always been our concern. One of the proponents of the bill earlier today talked about big businesses and big businesses getting a free ride. That is not what this debate is all about if you are from Oregon or Montana or New Hampshire. What you are concerned about are your small businesses.

These are innovators. They are people without lobbies and political action committees. They are small businesses. Someday they would like to be big, but they are trying to compete in a nationwide marketplace and they are overwhelmingly in opposition to this bill and for understandable reasons.

They hear this is all about States rights and then they actually look at what this bill does and this bill coerces them to collect taxes for, in effect, thousands of jurisdictions around the country.

It has been my interest, and I want to repeat it, to work out a compromise on this issue. Our side has put down on paper a number of proposals that we think ought to be the basis for trying to work out a position that would allow, from our standpoint, at least some semblance of a right for a State to make its own judgments and not be coerced into just going along with a piece of legislation that forces our small businesses to collect these taxes for everybody else. The way I have compared it, whenever the proponents of the bill say they are for States rights, what I have said is they are for States rights if they think the State is right.

I am going to now read some examples because my colleagues have said they want to hear specific instances. Here is what we heard from the Oregon Nurserymen. These are not big businesses. These are not businesses with 500 people. These are businesses with five, seven or eight employees. Senator Merkley and I are very proud of our Oregon nurseries. They produce an extraordinarily high-quality product, ranked one, two or three in every category of nursery products.

The reality is those are products that are being sought out by Americans in every nook and cranny of the Nation. That is how free markets are supposed to work. The seller of high-quality goods wins sales over those supplying lower quality goods.

What this bill is going to do, as outlined by the small businesses Senator Merkley and I represent, the Oregon Association of Nurserymen, this bill is going to add substantial costs to Oregon retailers and make it more difficult for them to compete with lower quality sellers in other parts of the country.

Here is a letter, and I will quote from it, from the Oregon Nurserymen. They are the growers and sellers of plants and trees. They are the prototypical small business and the backbone of our economy. This is a quote:

It is my view that this legislation would force small

businesses to spend precious time generating endless sales

reports for government instead of tending to customers,

selling plants and trees, and creating traded sector jobs.

Oregon growers are far away from their markets and we need to

look to knock down barriers to sales of our green goods.

There are fewer than five people at these firms. Here is another quote from a small business:

Let's call the bill what it is--a transaction tax. As the

legislation stands now, the bill will impact the

marketplace--to the detriment of the small business and their

ability to conduct commerce. Congress taxes things it wants

to go away.

That is what these nurserymen, whom Senator Merkley and I represent, are saying about this bill. They are saying the way they read this-- where they would have to collect taxes for people in thousands of jurisdictions across the country--is that it is the motivation of Congress trying to make these businesses go away.

Let me just say categorically, I have known Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi for a long time. They are not interested in an Oregon business going away or anybody else's business going away. That is not their intent. Regrettably, that is the effect. I just outlined how a small businessperson describes the nature of free markets.

We are very proud of what we do in the nursery industry in Oregon. We like the fact that we are selling high-quality goods, and we are winning those sales over those supplying lower quality goods. However, I know this is going to add substantial costs to Oregon retailers, and in their own words they have said this would put them at a disadvantage in tough global competition.

I also want to say this--particularly since the Senator from Illinois is here--because I hope it indicates my desire to try to work something out for purposes of passing this bill. I made an enormous concession for purposes of an agreement. This bill clearly gives a foreign retailer a leg up over an Oregon retailer or Montana retailer or anybody else because it doesn't apply to those foreign retailers.

One of my and Senator Merkley's constituents, Fire Mountain Gems-- located in Grants Pass, OR--is competing in a tough global market. And what is going to happen is this bill--because it will not affect their foreign competition--is going to cause them to spend time and money that their foreign competitors would not have to do. They sell all over the country in scores of jurisdictions. This bill gives a big advantage to foreign retailers because it does nothing to, in effect, level the playing field between the small merchants and the businesses that Senator Merkley and I represent and their foreign competitors.

For the purpose of a good-faith effort, we have made a concession to try to work this out. At this time I am not pressing to have that flaw, which is an enormous flaw. It gives a significant advantage to foreign retailers over American business.

I see the distinguished President of the Senate here, and he has been so eloquent in standing up for the rights of American businesses. We have a feature in this bill that actually gives a huge windfall to the foreign retailers at the expense of American business.

I am not asking for that to be corrected in this legislation, even though I think it is enormous discrimination against American business. The Senator from Wyoming and I both serve on the Finance Committee. I chair the Finance Subcommittee on Global Competitiveness. It is awfully hard to be globally competitive if we give an advantage to foreign retailers. But in the

interest of trying to work this out, I said we will not insist on that being addressed in this bill. We will have to come back to the Finance Committee and look at that.

So what our side has said is--Senator Merkley, the Senators from New Hampshire, the Senators from Montana--just give us the opportunity to be able to tell our constituents: You are not going to have this pushed down your throat. You are not going to be coerced into collecting these sales taxes from thousands of jurisdictions around the country.

I don't see how we can have States rights if a State loses its ability to make any judgments at all about areas where it wants to make its own priorities. Its priorities are being determined right here in Washington, DC, with this legislation with respect to the collection of sales taxes. Those priorities are being made here.

When Oregon small businesses are being coerced by State governments located thousands of miles from Oregon's borders, I think that is too much. I think adding a layer of bureaucracy to the large and growing national marketplace fostered by the Net in the way this does attacks our most competitive small businesses.

I also want to highlight--because the only amendment I have objected to so far today has been the one with respect to the Internet Tax Freedom Act that I authored back in 1998 in the Senate--the reason I had to object is the text of this legislation directly undercuts the Internet Tax Freedom act, and I will be specific.

The law we wrote prohibits discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. It is section 1101 of the Internet tax bill. It prohibits discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. Under the text of the bill, in effect they could require an Internet company in one of these States, such as New Hampshire, to collect sales taxes for the Massachusetts government. However, if somebody drives from Massachusetts to another one of these States, such as New Hampshire, the brick-and-mortar store doesn't have to pump the perspective customer for all kinds of information about where they are from or where they are going and the like.

So the reason--with great reluctance--I had to object to adding this legislation to this bill that I am the original author of in the Senate is because this bill in its current form directly undercuts the essence of the Internet Tax Freedom legislation.

At this time I will yield to my colleague, Senator Merkley. I just want to make a special note that Senator Merkley has made a whole host of important contributions in the Senate, and I have been especially pleased he has been a persistent advocate for small business. I know the Senator from Illinois brought up big businesses in Oregon. The grief we have here is what this is going to mean to those small businesses, those nurserymen--the Oregon Association of Nurserymen-- with 5, 8, or 10 people. Those are the people for whom Senator Merkley and I are advocating.

I am happy to yield the rest of my time to Senator Merkley.

I really don't. I know the sponsors of the legislation keep talking about how this is not going to be a burden, for example, to the businesses my colleague advocates for, and that there is going to be software, computers, and technology. I think my colleague's question is pivotal.

There is a little bit of interesting history I think my friend from Wyoming knows more about than anyone else. For years there has been an effort at the State level to try to remove some of the hassles and the costs that my colleague has talked about. I think the official name-- and my colleague probably knows this--is the State streamlined sales tax project or something along those lines.

If it were so simple, and if this was something that didn't have the kind of costs for small businesses that my colleague is so concerned about, I think we would have already seen it put into effect by the proponents of the bill.

The reason we are on the Senate floor talking about it--and talking about Oregon businesses being forced to do this against their will--is that it is not without costs, it is not without hassle, and the technology and all of the marvels of software and computers that we have heard about for the proponents is not there. They have not been able to do it through that kind of approach--which is essentially voluntary--so now they are on the Senate floor to force States such as Oregon to do it.

The Senator is right that certainly those jurisdictions could challenge Oregon. It goes to the question, again, of how the systems are not in place, so let's just force Oregon to do it even though the systems have not been available. There are actually more than 9,000 separate taxing jurisdictions.

What we have been told by the proponents of the bill is that they are going to get this down to a smaller number of systems than 9,000. Again, that is why it ought to be possible--if the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Wyoming will negotiate with us--to work something out.

We have given them on paper several proposals to try to find some common ground where our constituents--folks in Oregon especially, but they are in New Hampshire and Montana and other States that have made their own judgments--would have the ability to shape some of our own decisions. As my colleague knows, Washington State has a sales tax. We don't have a sales tax. So our region alone shows that if we could allow States to come together and make their own voluntary judgments, it is pretty clear that folks in Washington believe they made some of the right decisions for their economy and individuals and we have made our own. The fact that a State with a sales tax and a State without a sales tax coexist--and quite peaceably--right next to

each other is a pretty good argument why Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi should work with us to have some kind of a voluntary situation.

Again, it sure looks as though those are going to be the kinds of burdens our States--the ones without a sales tax--are going to be subjected to.

The proponents say: That is not going to happen. There is going to magically be all of this software and all of this technology, so if anybody wants to come back and look later, this is not going to be hard to respond to.

I just know, looking at all of the businesses that have been in touch with us--including A to Z Wineworks, for example. We have clothing stores, such as Queen Bee, a quintessential small business that is employing eight skilled staff members who all help to bring the designs to life at the Hive on North Williams Street in Portland. The Senator and I know them. Their goods are locally crafted in Portland. Rebecca Pearcy there said she--I will quote her:

Building, running, and maintaining a Web site is expensive

and complicated enough. I can't imagine having to include the

additional infrastructure of charging and paying sales taxes

to States outside of Oregon.

These are real businesses with six, eight people who, when they hear that they are going to have to pay, that they are going to run the risk of having these kinds of audits and the like, and that maybe there is going to be software and computers for them to take care of it, they say: You have to be kidding. We can't put our business at risk on the promise of that kind of hope and a Washington promise.

Mr. President, I couldn't say it any better than Senator Merkley. I think he has characterized what this legislation is all about better than anybody I have heard on the floor of the Senate.

I have been in this debate for quite a while here. It is about coercion. It is about putting those small businesses Senator Merkley is talking about through sort of the equivalent of bureaucratic water torture. I have explained how the text of it in its present form directly violates the prohibition in the Internet Tax Freedom Act of discriminatory taxes.

Again, to the sponsors of the legislation, I wish to repeat that I and Senator Merkley and Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, the two Montana Senators--we have put down on paper--on paper, I say to my colleagues--specific offers to try to work this out. Senator Merkley and I understand the votes that have been cast. We can count. That is part of how one gets to be a Senator. But the Senator from Illinois has not responded in writing to any of the offers we made.

We would like to walk through this process and find a way to have some opportunity to tell our constituents--particularly the ones Senator Merkley correctly identified as being small and going through all of these bureaucratic water torture drills--that they are going to be able to shape their own future.

Washington has a sales tax. Oregon doesn't. The Senator from Illinois keeps talking about how Oregon is going to be some huge haven if we get an opportunity to initiate a voluntary compact. That hasn't happened today. When we have one State and another that are borders--as my colleagues know, we are very close. We have kept the peace. We can work out these approaches.

To have Senator Merkley and I concede on the major point, which is the provision that gives a foreign retailer a leg up in this bill-- which I think is a very serious defect, and I think a lot of Senators who vote for this bill, when they see that it is going to be a huge advantage for foreign retailers, they are going to have some real misgivings about that--we gave that up for purposes of this. We have made concessions. We can't even get an offer in writing about something to negotiate that would incorporate a way to protect our States from the kinds of features Senator Merkley has correctly described.

I especially appreciate him going through the specifics, as he always does. Senator Merkley cited the fact that this legislation has a provision to basically compensate people for errors, which suggests to me that they think there are going to be a bunch of errors and the reason they think so is because they are right, as my friend from Wyoming knows, because they sought in the effort to try to sort this out during the streamlined sales tax discussions that have gone on for so many years.

I wish to yield to Senator Merkley for the last word. It is a pleasure to partner with Senator Merkley on so many issues, and he has described it today as well as anyone has in this discussion. I thank Senator Merkley for all of his leadership, and I yield to him for closing it up, as our small businesses in Oregon, such as the Oregon Association of Nurserymen, have been talking to us about.

Mr. President, today Senator Murkowski and I are introducing the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013. This legislation is designed to establish a responsible management strategy for the Federal Helium Reserve that will prevent the disruption of the entire helium supply chain that impacts major parts of the U.S. economy.

Helium is a valuable national resource that is used for a wide range of applications such as a coolant for magnetic resonance imagining machines, semiconductor manufacturing, military aviation, aerospace, and Federal R&D; pressurizing and purging systems; leak detection; welding; and breathing mixtures. Helium uses are diverse. Substitutes are often unavailable. The current global supply is constrained.

The Federal Government has long been in the helium business. In the 1920s, helium was used to float blimps or national defense purposes. Since that time the Federal Government has continued to play a significant role in the production, refining, and storing of helium. This has included establishing a U.S. underground stockpile known as the Federal Helium Reserve located just outside of Amarillo, TX. The Reserve currently supplies 40 percent of the domestic and 30 percent of global helium demand. Eventually, the helium supplies in the Reserve will become too depleted to be used, but for now they provide a critical source of supply.

Current law requires the Federal government to sell off the crude helium remaining in the Federal Helium Reserve in order to repay the U.S. Treasury the $1.3 billion debt incurred creating it. That debt will be fully repaid this fiscal year. As a result, the helium program will terminate in October absent Congressional action. The result, if Congress does not extend operation of the Reserve, will be significant disruption in sector after sector of economy--everything from medical imaging to semiconductor manufacturing.

We need to act. It is important that we act now.

Our bottom line goal is to keep the Federal Helium Reserve open, until new sources of supply can be developed, and prevent significant disruptions to a number of critical U.S. industries.

This bipartisan bill has two primary objective; one is to ensure helium market stability for end-users, and to ensure a fair return on this Federal asset to American taxpayers. We believe that it is essential that there be an adequate price discovery mechanism for the sale price of helium to nongovernmental organizations. Our bill would require the Secretary of Interior to establish an auction process to ensure that government prices for helium reflect its value in the marketplace based on an initial auction of 10 percent of supply and increasing that amount by an additional 10 percent a year. But it is also important to keep in mind that the Reserve currently provides major shares of the domestic and global helium supply and we do not want this legislation to disrupt the many industrial and heath care activities that are dependent on helium.

I believe this legislation strikes the right balance. The bill provides for an orderly, gradual transition among three phases, resulting in minimal market disruption to end users. It introduces a price discovery mechanism and transparency measures that will increase the taxpayer return and stimulate investment in private-sector sources. It further gives priority to meeting the needs of Federal users at Federal agencies, national laboratories, and universities. This legislation maintains access to crude helium for Federal users to perform the experiments that lead to the discoveries that drive economic growth, while requiring the development of a long-term plan for Federal helium purchases.

Helium may not be the most high profile natural resources, but it is one resource that is central to our economy. This legislation is urgent, critical, and necessary to ensure that we continue on a trajectory for economic growth that protects the jobs of domestic manufacturers and industrial partners as well as Federal users across the Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today Senator Murkowski and I are introducing the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013. This legislation is designed to establish a responsible management strategy for the Federal Helium Reserve that will prevent the disruption of the entire helium supply chain that impacts major parts of the U.S. economy.

Helium is a valuable national resource that is used for a wide range of applications such as a coolant for magnetic resonance imagining machines, semiconductor manufacturing, military aviation, aerospace, and Federal R&D; pressurizing and purging systems; leak detection; welding; and breathing mixtures. Helium uses are diverse. Substitutes are often unavailable. The current global supply is constrained.

The Federal Government has long been in the helium business. In the 1920s, helium was used to float blimps or national defense purposes. Since that time the Federal Government has continued to play a significant role in the production, refining, and storing of helium. This has included establishing a U.S. underground stockpile known as the Federal Helium Reserve located just outside of Amarillo, TX. The Reserve currently supplies 40 percent of the domestic and 30 percent of global helium demand. Eventually, the helium supplies in the Reserve will become too depleted to be used, but for now they provide a critical source of supply.

Current law requires the Federal government to sell off the crude helium remaining in the Federal Helium Reserve in order to repay the U.S. Treasury the $1.3 billion debt incurred creating it. That debt will be fully repaid this fiscal year. As a result, the helium program will terminate in October absent Congressional action. The result, if Congress does not extend operation of the Reserve, will be significant disruption in sector after sector of economy--everything from medical imaging to semiconductor manufacturing.

We need to act. It is important that we act now.

Our bottom line goal is to keep the Federal Helium Reserve open, until new sources of supply can be developed, and prevent significant disruptions to a number of critical U.S. industries.

This bipartisan bill has two primary objective; one is to ensure helium market stability for end-users, and to ensure a fair return on this Federal asset to American taxpayers. We believe that it is essential that there be an adequate price discovery mechanism for the sale price of helium to nongovernmental organizations. Our bill would require the Secretary of Interior to establish an auction process to ensure that government prices for helium reflect its value in the marketplace based on an initial auction of 10 percent of supply and increasing that amount by an additional 10 percent a year. But it is also important to keep in mind that the Reserve currently provides major shares of the domestic and global helium supply and we do not want this legislation to disrupt the many industrial and heath care activities that are dependent on helium.

I believe this legislation strikes the right balance. The bill provides for an orderly, gradual transition among three phases, resulting in minimal market disruption to end users. It introduces a price discovery mechanism and transparency measures that will increase the taxpayer return and stimulate investment in private-sector sources. It further gives priority to meeting the needs of Federal users at Federal agencies, national laboratories, and universities. This legislation maintains access to crude helium for Federal users to perform the experiments that lead to the discoveries that drive economic growth, while requiring the development of a long-term plan for Federal helium purchases.

Helium may not be the most high profile natural resources, but it is one resource that is central to our economy. This legislation is urgent, critical, and necessary to ensure that we continue on a trajectory for economic growth that protects the jobs of domestic manufacturers and industrial partners as well as Federal users across the Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, the Senate is on course to consider profoundly misguided legislation. This proposal is known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, but it is anything but fair. The Marketplace Fairness Act is unprecedented in its reach to discriminate against the Internet, employers, and States with modest or no sales taxes.

As the Internet economy has evolved through innovation, and as it expanded because of the value the innovation enabled, traditional brick-and-mortar businesses are seeking to compete through legislation. Big retailers, effectively seeking a legislative bailout, have allied themselves with State governments that see the Marketplace Fairness Act as an opportunity to obtain new tax revenue without enduring the political consequence of enforcing their own tax laws in their own jurisdictions. It is always easier to put the burden of collecting taxes on the people who can't vote for you; isn't that right, Mr. President?

The Marketplace Fairness Act is going to hobble the Internet economy and constrain online commerce. It is, in my view, a recipe for economic stagnation. It would rein in the Internet economy which has helped lead our economy out of the recession that began in 2008. What this proposal does is give each State the ability to require online businesses outside their States to enforce their tax laws. It enables the State of Indiana or the State of South Dakota to require online businesses located in New Hampshire to collect sales taxes on their behalf. Let me repeat that. The Marketplace Fairness Act could require the businesses of New Hampshire, a State that has determined not to have a sales tax, to collect sales taxes for goods or services provided to consumers in Indiana or South Dakota and then send money to those States.

This proposal, in effect, unleashes all the Nation's tax collectors on small Internet businesses--Internet entrepreneurs who have neither the ability to enforce the terms of the Marketplace Fairness Act nor the political influence in this city to be able to shape

the legislation. The Marketplace Fairness Act takes the Internet down a dangerous path because its passage would endorse the notion that Internet entities should be required to enforce laws outside their home jurisdiction.

Foreign countries have long pressed the notion the Internet should be ceded to their control. Let me repeat that. This has been an objective of a whole number of our global competitors over the years--trying to, in effect, get control over the Internet. There is no difference in New York telling Oregon Internet firms to enforce New York laws than China telling American firms to enforce China's censorship practice. As it is already, many countries are seeking to actually put the United Nations in charge as the Internet's regulator-in-chief, and this bill, to a great extent, endorses that world view.

Today the Senate is being asked to consider schemes to allow States and localities to essentially nationalize their taxes, but tomorrow the Senate may be asked to consider similar schemes to enforce laws and regulations about content, for example, and other issues that are so important to the powerful and the well connected.

The precedent the Marketplace Fairness Act establishes takes the Internet, the American economy, and our society down a dark path. It is a path toward a future where governments can impose their values and their regulatory regimes on Internet businesses anywhere. It is a future in which the sovereignty of the country and the sovereignty of our States is significantly eroded.

Beyond these issues, the proponents of the legislation are spawning myths about the bill that aren't true. One myth is the Marketplace Fairness Act levels the playing field. They are going to argue the Marketplace Fairness Act levels the playing field between brick-and- mortar firms and Internet companies for purposes of collecting and remitting sales taxes. But the facts are the facts, and they indicate otherwise.

Furthermore, even if Best Buy knows the consumer resides in Washington, DC, because Best Buy provides the consumer with a credit card or a rewards card that is associated with a Washington, DC, address, Best Buy is still allowed to assume the television purchased will be consumed in Virginia. The Marketplace Fairness Act, in my view, is a targeted strike against the Internet and a targeted strike against the digital economy.

Another myth being put forward is the myth the MFA isn't about new taxes; that the proposal is about enforcing taxes already owed. The fact is the taxes that would be collected as a result of the Marketplace Fairness Act's passage have generally not been collected. So these are going to be regarded as new taxes. This is money that is going to come out of the pockets of American families that has not come out of their pockets before.

Collecting sales and use taxes for goods or services acquired in another State has long been a low priority for State and local governments. Because these taxes go uncollected and unenforced, the establishment of an unprecedented regime to collect them for the first time is going to require American consumers to pay more sales taxes and pay more use taxes.

Furthermore, the creation of this new trans-State enforcement scheme creates significant new incentives for States to establish new sales taxes and new use taxes and also to increase the tax rates that exist now for these particular items.

Ultimately, the Marketplace Fairness Act is going to require consumers to pay an additional $22 billion in sales taxes they have never had to pay before. In fact, unless the United States pursues the types of international arrangements that govern the Internet economy-- the types of arrangements sought by China and a host of other States-- foreign Internet retailers will only continue to have the competitive advantage the Marketplace Fairness Act would artificially provide them. That is not what the American economy needs. That is not what is going to promote online innovation and value.

I hope my colleagues will oppose this Marketplace Fairness Act. It is premature. It is, more than anything else, coercive. It is coercive.

We are going to hear about how simple this is. Back when we started writing the first bills about technology and the Internet, we said the key principle is do no harm. This is going to do harm. Just this past weekend, I was in southern Oregon, where we have many small retailers. We have one in Grants Pass, OR--Fire Mountain Gems. It is an exciting new business online, but it is up against very tough international competition. What I fear is that unless there is a thoughtful effort along the lines of what Chairman Baucus has tried to do in the Finance Committee to think this through, this bill, in a global economy, will give foreign retailers a significant leg up.

We will have people on the northern border of the United States or the southern border of the United States who will say: I want to do business in the United States. I am a patriotic American, but there are more than 8,000 taxing jurisdictions in America. If we force our businesses, our online retailers, such as the one I represent in southern Oregon, to spend their time and their money trying to comply with scores and scores of tax regimes that are thousands of miles away, it is going to be very tough for them to compete with foreign retailers.

This violates the basic principle we began decades ago with respect to technology; that is, do no harm. Do no harm to the cause of innovation, ensure we have fairness--bricks and clicks together--which is the future of the American economy.

This bill violates that basic principle of technology policy. It will do harm.

I urge my colleagues to oppose it and its premature consideration by the full Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me commend my colleague from Minnesota for making so many thoughtful points in this effort to deal with climate change. Having returned from Oregon, with a whole host of meetings in connection with Earth Day, the Senator is spot-on in speaking about the enormity of the problem. It is very clear that the planet is getting warmer, drought is becoming more serious, the fires are becoming more catastrophic and the storms increasingly brutal. It is very clear that now Democrats and Republicans must come together around this issue.

The Senator and I serve together on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This will be priority business for us, and his thoughtful remarks today are yet another effort in terms of trying to bring people together. The focus of the Senator's remarks has been not to say it is this person's fault or another person's fault, it is about how Democrats and Republicans need to come together.

I commend my Democratic colleague for his good speech and the good fortune to chair the subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources, where he will be able to focus on these issues.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

The Senate has now moved to the Marketplace Fairness Act. I say this, frankly, a little dubiously because I think it really ought to be called the Shop Canada or Shop Mexico Act. It will make it attractive for businesses located in the United States to set up shops overseas as the coercion that is applied to the United States will not affect foreign retailers.

What I wish to do tonight is speak for a brief period of time-- because we are going to have opportunity throughout the week to discuss this--in the hopes that the points I highlight tonight will help start a bipartisan effort to attempt to fix what I think are the most serious problems with the Marketplace Fairness Act.

The essence of my concern is that coercion and discrimination are not what America is all about. Those are the fundamental principles of the Marketplace Fairness Act. What I wish to do is be very specific with respect to how this coercion and discrimination, particularly against some of the most innovative forces in the American economy, are going to take their toll.

With respect to coercion, this is legislation that enabled one State to impose the enforcement of its laws on 49 other States and the territories without the approval of such States and territories. Let me repeat this. It is coercion. It can be forced on these other States against their will. In effect, under the Marketplace Fairness Act, businesses may be audited by a myriad of out-of-State tax collectors and be forced to defend themselves in out-of-State courts.

A vote for the Marketplace Fairness Act without efforts to try to promote some element of voluntary participation is a vote to subject a Senator's home State Internet companies to the whim and will of tax collectors and State courts around the country. This, in essence, is the coercion aspect of this legislation.

I have suggested to Senators that at a minimum this effort, this legislation should be altered to allow for voluntary compacts. Congress would say States could voluntarily take these steps with respect to interstate tax collection rather than being required to do it. I have heard my colleagues who say perhaps this would make one State a haven with respect to Internet sales. The reality is that States rights are about States rights. One State may look to choose to incent one particular type of business or another, but this is ultimately a State decision.

If you are, in fact, a supporter of States rights, why would you oppose something that allows a State to voluntarily choose what course it wishes to promote with respect to the collection of online taxes? This is not what this bill is all about. It is not voluntary, it is coercive. That is why, in my view, it undermines what I think the principles of our country are all about. Our country is not about coercion, it is not about discrimination. This is what the bill, regrettably, is all about.

Let me outline the second point with respect to how the Marketplace Fairness Act discriminates against Internet companies. The Marketplace Fairness Act relies on Internet sellers to determine the address of where consumers are located in order to generate an approximation of where goods or services sold by an online retailer will be consumed. There is no similar requirement with respect to brick-and-mortar businesses--no similar requirement with respect to brick-and-mortar businesses--even though consumers often travel across State lines in order to purchase goods and services that may be unavailable to them in their home jurisdictions or available at lower sales or use tax rates.

The Marketplace Fairness Act does not require brick-and-mortar firms to obtain and use consumer information to determine where a good or service may be consumed. Why should the Federal Government require Internet companies to collect and remit sales and use taxes on behalf of consumers but not impose any such burden on brick-and-mortar firms providing goods and services to out-of-State consumers?

So the irony of this is that really about 15 years ago--and it has been particularly satisfying to me in terms of our service in the Senate--as we began to look at policies that would allow innovation and technology to grow--and I will talk a little about how some of those policies led to the first investments in social media--we established two principles with respect to technology policy: No. 1, we said let's ensure there is no discrimination. What goes on off-line and what goes on online should be parallel so that we can encourage both parts of the American economy.

That principle has made a lot of sense. In fact, it has led to a great many stores--I am sure at home in Indiana for the Presiding Officer of the Senate--with bricks and clicks looking to try to have a vigorous presence in States because the two are mutually reinforcing. To do that we have to ensure there is a policy of nondiscrimination.

What I have done is outline very specifically about how the Marketplace Fairness Act moves away from that principle of nondiscrimination by giving, in many jurisdictions, the brick-and- mortar retailers a leg up. And what I am in favor of is continuing that policy which has made sense for 15 years.

We also talked about doing no harm and ensuring we especially promoted voluntary approaches--voluntary approaches. I think it was before the Presiding Officer was in the Congress, but one of the things I was especially proud of was our help in generating investment in the social media back when I came to the Senate. There was a great concern about censorship online. Of course, all of us, as parents, were horrified by some of the smut and pornography that was coming available online, all over the Web, and so a big debate was held.

There were essentially two approaches: One was to set up a big censorship effort that would say, for example, if somebody posted some of this horrible pornography on a Web site or a blog, the Web site would be held secondarily liable for this material posted on the site. A lot of us said: No way the Net is going to be able to grow if Web sites and blogs are held liable for something that is posted on their site, which they probably aren't even going to know anything about because there are, of course, thousands and thousands of postings-- millions in the case of some of the big sites.

So working with a very conservative Republican in the House, Congressman Cox, we wrote an alternative approach which encouraged voluntary approaches with respect to dealing with a societal problem, and a very serious problem with respect to pornography. Back then the Congress didn't know how to deal with these issues, so both approaches--both the censorship approach and the voluntary approach to help parents filter out the smut--actually got into the law and it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down the censorship approach and upheld the voluntary bipartisan approach Congressman Cox and I put together.

Today, when we talk to people in the social media, they will tell us that voluntary approach was, to a great extent, what encouraged the first investments in social media. People in social media will say nobody would have invested in the future Facebooks and Twitters and the like if they thought the social media sites, the Web sites and the like, were going to be held secondarily liable for something that was posted.

That voluntary approach, which did so much to boost our economy, is being rejected in the Marketplace Fairness Act as it is written because this bill goes to a coercive approach, as I said, that would outline the ability for one State to impose the enforcement of its laws on 49 other States and territories without the approval of those States and territories.

So I bring up this tonight because I am very hopeful as this debate goes forward and the bill is considered further that at a minimum the sponsors of the legislation--and all of us here can count and look at vote totals--will see that allowing for voluntary compacts is really what States rights are all about, No. 1. It is that voluntary approach that has made such a difference in encouraging the innovation and growth of the Internet and technology.

One other point I would like to mention tonight is what this bill does with respect to America's ability to compete in a global economy. This is, in effect, an unprecedented approach that would apply local laws to the global medium that is the Internet.

For example, I just came back--flew about 6,000 miles over the last few days--from meeting with constituents at home. I was in southern Oregon until the middle of the day yesterday. They have a big e- commerce effort going in a wonderful company called Fire Mountain Gems in Grants Pass, OR, with hundreds of employees and a very exciting online business. Their big competitor in Grants Pass, OR--which is a town that has been hard hit economically. We are working hard on their forestry issues, particularly trying to get the harvest up. That is something I am working on as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I had a good chance to talk about resources policy with the Presiding Officer of the Senate.

One of the things they very much want to do in Grants Pass is find as many good-paying jobs as they can, given the fact the economy is hurting in rural areas.

So as I try to boost the harvest in Grants Pass, OR, and get people back to work in the woods, I am obviously looking for other areas where businesses could grow. This legislation, as

written, will deal a significant body blow to a business's ability to grow, such as the one I know about in Grants Pass, OR. Here is why: The legislation doesn't apply to foreign retailers, and the competition for Fire Mountain Gems is certainly overseas, with a host of companies in this space.

It also has huge implications for the northern border and the southern border of our country because so many of the promising businesses in those communities are going to say to themselves: We are patriotic Americans. We deeply believe in our country and our values, but how are we going to compete? How are we going to figure out a way to wade through more than 9,000 taxing jurisdictions? Wouldn't it be more sensible to just move a half hour across the border and not have to go through any of this?

I just don't think this works as it relates to the global economy. Maybe this bill ought to be called the Shop China or Shop Mexico or Shop Canada bill. Whatever you call it, it seeks to apply local laws to a global medium. That, in my view, defies common sense, and, by the way, that too has been a principle that has been rejected in debates about tech policy over the years.

So I hope Senators are going to be open to working with the bipartisan group--there are a host of Senators on both sides of the aisle who care about these issues--to take some of the principles that have been central to the growth of innovation, online business-- particularly as it relates to new apps and new technologies--that have worked for the last few years and build them into this legislation, rather than repudiate the principles of voluntarism and nondiscrimination that have been so key, as I have outlined here tonight, to investment in the social media, to encouraging innovation through nondiscriminatory tax policies, and to new innovations that we began to bring into the policy arena, such as digital signatures.

There we had the same thing--a great concern about whether this was equitable, whether it would work, but after hearings and a thoughtful analysis, a group of us wrote that law as well. So whether it was regulation, whether it was taxes, whether it was innovation such as digital signatures, the four or five laws over the last 15 years that have paid off for technology and innovation and small business--the basic principles behind those laws--are being repudiated in this bill and, I believe, will be injurious to the country.

So my hope is, as we go forward, that we can take some of those principles that have been key to growth in the technology sector and start building them into this discussion with respect to collection of online sales taxes.

By the way, for more than a decade, this has been a topic. I and others have said we are very open to any and all approaches to collect taxes owed, and particularly ones that don't amount to what looks like bureaucratic water torture associated with the collection process. And I think Senators are underestimating how difficult this will be.

I would particularly cite the proposition that if it was so easy, it would have been done some time ago. By the way, it would have been done with voluntary actions through many of these taxing jurisdictions rather than the coercive approach that is advanced in this legislation.

I see my friend from New Hampshire. I was particularly struck, I would say to my colleague, about how the principles I am talking about today--coercion and nondiscrimination--apply in my colleague's State as well because her State, as so many others, would face the prospect where online retailers would have one set of burdensome rules that wouldn't apply to a whole host of other businesses. It brings back the principle of discrimination we rejected years and years ago.

Having heard the Senator from New Hampshire speak eloquently on these issues, I look forward to her remarks. When I came to the floor, I said the key to successful tech legislation for the last 15 years has been two principles: a voluntary approach rather than a coercive approach and nondiscrimination rather than discrimination. The Senator from New Hampshire and I are from States where this bill brings those policies-- coercion and discrimination--back in very stark terms that will be injurious to the citizens we represent and harm the cause of innovation across the country.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for all her contributions.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her contribution.

Obviously, the vote this afternoon didn't go our way. My hope is that as Senators from both political parties have a chance over the next few days to lay out the consequences of the two principles we have been talking about--staying away from coercion and staying away from discrimination--by the time the Senate has completed debate and votes, we can come up with a proposal that will not set back the cause of innovation in this country.

We both have talked about the fact that the March numbers on jobs were not where we would like them to be. Particularly distressing is the number of people who seem to be either dropping out of the workforce or working part time because they can't find anything full time. Now we are looking at policies that will make efforts to put those people back to work even harder.

So I am very appreciative of the fact that the Senator was able to come to the floor; because what I tried to do over the last 20 minutes or half an hour is outline what has worked in technology policy for the last 15 years. It has been nondiscrimination and noncoercion. This bill repudiates both of those. My hope is the Senator and I and other Senators on both sides of the aisle can find a way to change this legislation so as to at least not go backward with respect to those values that have been so key to the growth of jobs in the technology sector. To have the Senator here is so helpful, and I am very appreciative.

A good note to close on.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 42, S. Res. 90.

Mr. President, I further ask that the committee-reported amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the committee- reported title amendment be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.