Bring Jobs Back Home Act - Motion to Proceed - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I certainly wish to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.

As she has stated, New Hampshire doesn't have a sales tax. There is absolutely nothing fair about the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, especially for a State such as New Hampshire. It should be more appropriately named the Internet sales tax collection act, because that is what it is--the Internet sales tax collection act. I certainly appreciate the work I have done with my colleague, both of us fighting the Marketplace Fairness Act, because there is nothing fair about it for New Hampshire and, frankly, nothing fair about it for online businesses across this country.

This act would ask our online businesses that have been thriving and growing--many people have started these businesses from their homes and we have seen those businesses flourish in our home State of New Hampshire--to become tax collectors for States that are greedy for revenue, and it would trample on the decision of a State such as New Hampshire not to have a sales tax. What it would mean for online businesses is they would have to become the tax collector not just for the 50 States, but they would actually have to become a tax collector for over 9,000 taxed jurisdictions in this country. Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare for an online business. Talk about an act that is going to put onerous burdens on an area of commerce that we have seen such great growth in. Talk about an act that is totally misnamed because there is nothing fair about it; it really is an Internet sales tax collection act.

In my home State of New Hampshire I have had so many online businesses write me about how this act--this MFA act--is going to hurt their business and is going to place onerous requirements on our businesses. Not only would they be forced to collect taxes for these other jurisdictions--over 9,000--but can we imagine what will happen once one of those jurisdictions--a municipality that is allowed to tax--changes their tax amount? Then, suddenly, they have to update their collection method. Guess what. If they get it wrong, they are subject to being sued in some other State, some other jurisdiction.

This is going to hurt the development of more online businesses because it creates a big bureaucracy. It is totally inappropriate. Why are we asking these thriving online businesses to become the tax collectors for States? The reason we have over 9,000 jurisdictions they have to collect for is because it is not just States; in some States even the municipal level has its own sales tax that can be collected. What a mess.

Then we see what is happening in Washington. The majority leader rule XIV'd a bill, and what he did is he attached the Marketplace Fairness Act, which I prefer to call the Internet sales tax collection act, to what was just passed in the House of Representatives: the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Talk about ironic. The Internet Tax Freedom Act is legislation I strongly support. This legislation is going to prevent taxes over the Internet, taxing the Internet that could hit all of us in some way, so that we can protect the freedom of the Internet and the growth we have seen on the Internet. It is widely supported on both sides of the aisle, as my colleague from New Hampshire said.

So the irony is that here we have an act that is so widely supported--the Internet Tax Freedom Act--providing a tax-free Internet--and the majority leader decides to attach to it the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, which is really the Internet sales tax collection act. That legislation creates new onerous burdens on online businesses to become the tax collectors for over 9,000 tax jurisdictions. We can see the irony of it. Here we have bipartisan support for freedom from taxes on the Internet that should be extended to allow the Internet to thrive and grow and continue to grow, and the majority leader, without a hearing--because when he rule XIV's it, there is no committee hearing. It doesn't go through the committee process where we can have hearings on the burdens this will place on online commerce and on online businesses not only in my home State of New Hampshire but in other businesses across the country. There was no hearing for this. It is an issue both sides of the aisle agree with: Let's keep the Internet tax-free. Then the majority leader attaches onto it with no hearing, under rule XIV, this onerous requirement which I like to call the Internet sales tax collection act. Of course, in Washington, they always name these acts to make us think it sounds good, so they call it the Marketplace Fairness Act. That is the irony. Only in Washington would we have rammed this through this process, without a committee hearing--legislation that protects Internet freedom, that has strong bipartisan support, attached with it new onerous burdens on Internet businesses to become the sales tax collectors for the Nation.

I join in what my colleague from New Hampshire just said. I think it is wrong that this bill is being pushed forward with the Internet Tax Freedom Act that has such strong support, that should be brought to this body as a stand-alone bill, not with these new burdensome requirements that are set forth in the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, otherwise known as the Internet sales tax collection act. The people of this country deserve to have a free, tax-free Internet. The online businesses of this country that are thriving and growing shouldn't become the tax collectors for States and municipalities that are greedy for more revenue. It is their job to collect their taxes. It shouldn't be an online business's job to collect taxes for over 9,000 jurisdictions, because we can only imagine how many changes will happen and what kind of paperwork nightmare that will create for those businesses. I have heard it from our businesses firsthand.

I hope this body will oppose any effort to vote for a bill that connects Internet tax freedom with Internet sales tax collection, because the two are antithetical. One works against the other. One ensures the freedom of the Internet to be tax-free and the other one creates new burdensome requirements on online businesses and actually works against, in my view, the thriving commerce we see over the Internet and has resulted in more choice for all of us as consumers in this country.

MALAYSIAN AIRLINES CRASH

Madam President, we all learned today, very shockingly, that there was a Malaysian Airlines flight shot down over Eastern Ukraine and that, reportedly, 295 people lost their lives in that incident. Reportedly, 23 Americans were listed on the manifest. I wish to offer my thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims of that plane that went down over Eastern Ukraine, and I want them to know they are in our thoughts and in our prayers.

I wish to raise the issue as following: There is an investigation going on. We don't know yet who is responsible or if anyone is responsible. The facts will come forward as to why this plane went down. But it has been widely reported that the plane was, in fact, shot down. Some of the reports have said it was done by a medium-range surface-to-air missile system.

We know that most recently there has been tremendous violence in Eastern Ukraine. If the investigation of this plane going down reveals that either Russia or Russian agents are responsible or indirectly responsible for shooting down this civilian airliner, there should be serious consequences.

What we know is that Vladimir Putin and the Russians have been responsible in fomenting the situation that has occurred in Eastern Ukraine where there has been violence, there has been recruiting, training, and funding of Russians and Russian agents, sending them to Eastern Ukraine to fight the Ukrainian Government, interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine. This was following the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea, the territory of Ukraine, by the Russian Government, and the Russians have taken over that portion of Ukraine.

We will wait to see what the investigation reveals for the downing of this plane. Our prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones. But I believe there should be serious consequences if we find out it was either Russian agents, Russian equipment, or Russia directly that was responsible for this airliner going down.

Yesterday the administration announced it would impose and was imposing greater sanctions on Russia for their activities of fomenting violence in Eastern Ukraine.

I want to thank the administration for finally coming forward and putting forth more serious sanctions against Vladimir Putin, against the Russian Government, for what they have done to interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine.

It is an important step forward, and I hope Vladimir Putin understands there are even greater sanctions that can be imposed if the sanctions that were announced yesterday by the administration that involve some sectoral sanctions against major industries in Russia and individuals--if they do not heed the warning that is coming from those sanctions, I hope Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government understand there are much tougher sanctions that can also be imposed if they do not heed the sanctions that were put in place yesterday and stop fueling the violence in Eastern Ukraine.

We need to understand the context of what we have seen happen in Eastern Ukraine. The separatists, the so-called separatists, in Eastern Ukraine are funded, equipped, and supported by the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin could end the violence in Eastern Ukraine tomorrow if he chose to. He essentially has operational control of what these violent separatists are doing to interfere with the sovereignty in Ukraine. He is responsible for the violence, and I would call on him to end that violence, to stop funding these separatists, to stop providing them with equipment that is being used against the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military, and to allow the people of Ukraine to determine their future. That is what they want.

I had the privilege of going to Ukraine for their Presidential election, and I was inspired by the people who went to the polls. I will never forget being there at the first polling station that day in the Presidential election and an older gentleman came to the polls and cast his ballot and said: For democracy.

The people of Ukraine want to determine their own future, just as we determine our future in this country. Vladimir Putin and Russia should allow the people of Ukraine to decide their future. They should stop interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine.

This is not a Ukrainian uprising of disenfranchised Russian-speaking Ukrainians. What is happening in Eastern Ukraine is a Kremlin-instigated, armed, funded, trained, and fueled aggression against the people of Ukraine and their duly elected government.

This is cynical and blatant aggression by Putin against Ukraine, and Putin continues to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty and security by arming these separatist rebels, massing Russian troops at the border of Eastern Ukraine in a very threatening way, and also threatening to increase further coercive measures against Ukraine.

The people of Ukraine need our help. The Ukrainian people are willing to risk their lives and have been risking their lives to defend the sovereignty of their country against President Putin's aggression, but the Ukrainian Government desperately needs our assistance.

In particular, the prior administration of Ukraine that left--President Yanukovych was very aligned with Russia--gutted their military and much of the equipment they need to be able to defend themselves.

Let me say, they have gone there and bravely defended themselves, even without having some of the equipment they need that was really lost by their military because of the prior administration and neglect of the Ukrainian military.

Ukrainians need assistance--and not only the sanctions the administration has issued, which could get tougher but they need military assistance from our country.

We have to keep in mind the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum. In return--our country, the Russians, were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum--in return for security assurances, the least we can do for them is give them the means to defend themselves.

I know the Ukrainian Government has asked us for antitank weapons, antiaircraft weapons, small arms, the sharing of intelligence so they can defend their own border. It is the least we can do for them, given that they gave up their nuclear weapons.

What country is going to give up their nuclear weapons again if we will not even give them some basic military assistance so they can defend themselves? They are not asking us to send our troops in. They are not asking for things like that. They are willing to defend themselves and they need our help to do so.

Finally, President Obama said in his June 4 speech in Poland: ``Our free nations will stand united so that further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia.'' I call on the President to continue to take action and to stand by those words.

Those words meant a lot to the Ukrainian people, and it is important that we follow through on those words because it is in the national security interests of the United States to stand with the people of Ukraine and their legitimately elected government as they seek to protect their sovereignty.

If we are not willing in these circumstances to stand by giving them some basic military support they have asked for, after having given up their nuclear weapons, then what lessons will other actors in the region and around the world take from that?

I think lesson No. 1 is: Why would you ever give up your nuclear weapons? In a world where we are hoping to reduce proliferation, this is not a good message for us to send.

No. 2: What will our allies in the region think if we will not stand against Russian aggression under these circumstances?

You have already seen concerns, of course, by the countries in the region that can be impacted by Russian aggression, whether it is Georgia, Moldova--concerns we have seen for further support from Poland, important allies in the region.

To put it in perspective of why we need to give this military support--in addition, we do not know what happened, but we will find out, with the downing of this commercial passenger plane and the tragic loss of 295 individuals. Over the last month, we have seen that on June 14 pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport, killing all 49 people on board; on June 16, Gazprom--Russia's giant state-controlled gas company--announced they are cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine.

Just this Monday, a Ukrainian cargo plane was shot down and Ukrainian officials believe it was shot down by missiles fired from Russia.

Last night, a Ukrainian fighter jet was shot down. Ukrainians also believe the Russians were involved in shooting down that fighter jet.

We will find out what happened to this passenger plane but it was in airspace where there have been instances of Russian agents directly involved in shooting down Ukrainian planes.

So it is important that we give the Ukrainian people the capacity to defend themselves under those circumstances. It is the least we can do, given that they are willing to stand up for their own sovereignty, that they are strong friends of the United States of America. If our allies in the region think we will not stand with the sovereignty of Ukraine under these situations, it is going to create a situation where our allies will not feel they can rely on the United States of America.

It also creates a situation where allies, friends, rivals, bullies, potential adversaries take the wrong message from it. For example, thinking about what is happening right now with the negotiations with Iran, if we are a country not willing to follow through to assist our friends--under circumstances where, for example, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons--with some basic military support, what kind of message will that send to the negotiations going on with Iran right now as to why they should give up their nuclear program?

So this is a very important moment for the United States of America. I again want to say that the steps the administration took to impose additional sanctions this week are a very important step. I support those. I hope Vladimir Putin and Russia heed what those sanctions mean. Those sanctions will have an impact on the Russian economy, but we can impose even stronger sanctions against Russia if they do not stop funding and causing the violence in Eastern Ukraine and interfering with the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people.

The people of Ukraine have our respect. They have stood for themselves. They had a free and fair election that I was able to observe. They elected their President, and now they want to determine their own future, and they want Russia to respect the sovereignty of their country--what any country in this world should be able to expect: that another country will respect their sovereignty.

Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin has been a bully in all of this and has not respected the sovereignty of Ukraine. He should understand the sanctions that were issued this week are a message to him to stop what he is doing in Eastern Ukraine, and we can issue even tougher sanctions--and should issue tougher sanctions--if he continues to act like a bully who thinks he can go into other countries, take their territory, and push people around in those countries, as we have seen in Ukraine.

This matters to the world because we cannot have people like Putin thinking they can invade another country without consequences.

Finally, I would hope we would provide more support to the Ukrainian military, given that they have been willing to stand for their own defense, to secure their own border, to stand for their own sovereignty, but it is very difficult for them to do so when they are facing Russian-supported separatists, Russian tanks, Russian antiaircraft equipment, and more sophisticated technology than they have at the moment.

We can help them by ensuring that they have the equipment to protect themselves, to protect their border, and to let Russia know there will be consequences if they continue to interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine or any other country.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source