Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2014 -- Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for coming to the floor to talk about this incredibly important issue to the American people.

I ask the Senator, isn't it true that for 16 years the Internet Tax Freedom Act has prevented politicians nationwide from using the Web as a piggy bank and has helped commerce thrive by keeping it free from burdensome tax restrictions? And isn't it true that by making this permanent--the way the House bill does and the way the bill does that my colleague from Oregon has offered that has 52 cosponsors in the Senate--we never have to allow the people of this country again to feel uncertainty that suddenly this great freedom we have on the Internet is going to be gone, where they are going to be taxed when they access the Internet or that somehow we are going to use the Internet as a way to raise money and a way to hurt e-commerce?

I would ask that of my colleague from the State of Texas. Is this all true, that if we can pass the House bill right now--which is similar to the bill offered by my colleague from Oregon--we can give the American people certainty that we are not going to tax what they are doing on the Internet?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, reserving the right to object. First of all, let me say to my colleague from Oregon, I share what you have described and the work that you did in bringing forth the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The success we have seen from keeping the Internet free from discriminatory taxes has been astounding. So I commend the Senator for that.

I am a proud cosponsor of your permanent act that you have with the Senator from South Dakota. I appreciate that you recognize how important it is that we keep this freedom for our Internet that has been so productive for the American people and, frankly, giving people from all walks of life access to this great tool on the Internet. So I thank my colleague from Oregon for that.

Unfortunately, I object. I want to note today that I am reserving my right to object because to extend this only to December 31 is to invite uncertainty to the American people.

I think the American people have had enough of these dramatic New Year's Eve moments in this body where they are wondering: Are we going to act upon important things, like will we ensure that the Internet remains free from discriminatory taxes? I know my colleague from Oregon shares the same goals.

But to put this to December 31, the lameduck of this body, at a moment where we can all be sitting here on New Year's Eve and the American people again can be looking at us saying: Why do you all leave this to the very last minute on something that has 52 cosponsors and is the right thing to do for the American people? We should give them certainty now by extending this law permanently.

I also note that if this is going to be extended into the lameduck session, I am very worried about the shenanigans that are going to happen. The shenanigans are on an issue that the Senator from Oregon and I are quite passionate about, and that is the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act my colleague from North Dakota just referenced, which, instead of the Marketplace Fairness Act, I like to call the Internet Sales Tax Selection Act.

My colleague from North Dakota mentioned that this is about the State and local selecting taxes. I respect that State and localities should be able to collect taxes. But for States such as Oregon and New Hampshire which don't have a sales tax, why should our businesses or why should any Internet business in this country take on the responsibility which has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local governments to collect taxes?

Under the so-called Market Fairness Act, what would happen is Internet businesses across this country--including in States such as Oregon and New Hampshire--would become the sales tax collectors for almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this country, which is a bureaucratic nightmare for so many thriving Internet businesses. It is an anathema to States such as ours--Oregon and New Hampshire--which have chosen not to have a sales tax.

Most importantly, to subject our great online businesses to the potential that they could be subject to an audit in almost 10,000 taxing jurisdictions to me is the opposite of what I know my colleague from Oregon is trying to accomplish with all the work he has done in this body, not only on the Wyden-Thune Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act--which I fully support--but all the other work he has done to make sure the Internet remains free and prosperous in this country for the benefit of all the American people.

So I object to what my colleague from Oregon has offered. I think a short-term fix is no fix at all. In fact, it leaves the American people again uncertain that we will protect their rights against discriminatory taxes that can be imposed on them over the Internet, and it also invites shenanigans with the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act that can get attached.

I know some of my colleagues have talked about the potential of attaching this unfair act, which I would like to call the Internet Sales Tax Collection Act, which makes our online businesses across this country the sales tax collectors for almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions in this Nation.

So, for those reasons, I object. I would like to see what my colleague from Oregon has put forth--which is excellent legislation, and I thank him for that--which is permanent tax freedom for the Internet.

With that, I believe the Senator from Texas would also like to be heard on this issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source