tv Supreme Court Decision on Online Sales Tax CSPAN July 9, 2018 12:06pm-1:07pm EDT
foundation, thank you. and thank you, everyone, for spending the morning with us. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] announcer: we continue bringing you live coverage. we head to the congressional internet conference academy discussing a recent supreme court decision on internet sales tax. it started a few minutes ago. some background on the case is being given now. >> what are the immediate implications and consequences of onlinecision on retailers, municipal ,overnments, shopping centers
particularly big box stores, what does this look like from each of those perspectives? >> i can jump in here. i think to understand what this looks like for state and local government, it's important to take a step back and understand what the effect of the quill decision was on state and local government. matt touched on this, but one of the most obvious impacts was state and local governments were unable to connect -- collect internet sales tax for many years. there were various estimates of how much was at stake, but even were $8estimates million a year, high estimates up to $30 billion a year. we are talking about a huge states wereney that losing out on and consumers did to bederstand they had
paying these use taxes. now that the quill decision is overturned, that is money that is in theory going to be collected by state and local governments. whether that will happen immediately, i think it will take some time. quill was the law of the land for decades. totes are going to have create their own legislation. from the local government perspective, you also have impediments to local tax collection. some state laws might prevent local governments from collecting. those will have to be amended. iere is streamlining that believe others will get into. i think it's a good effort at
trying to simplify things for online retailers that want to itlect money, but essentially creates a uniform sales tax within a state including preempting any sort of local tax rate, so the city might have a higher tax rate than the state in that agreement. there will be questions as to what is going to happen. is the city going to have to amend its local tax code? will there be higher rates for a brick-and-mortar? the money obviously is going to , and from ourg perspective, this was a huge win as a result of that. .e also had secondary impacts specifically, as brick and mortar stores were closing down -- and we will hear more about why that may have happened, but
as they were closing down in part because of this decision, we lost main streets in cities and counties. we lost the town center. that own -- that not only impacts what the town feels like, it affects property taxes, municipal services, crime. there are a whole host of secondary impacts that i'm not sure overturning quill is really going to immediately impact, but from our perspective, the consequences were severe, so we are pleased with the results. >> in answer to what the immediate consequences and implications are, one answers the role the congress place. congress is now the arena where policy issues are invented. decision byority justice kennedy recognized that congress has a role to play, the
authority to set rules on what is appropriate or not appropriate to exploit tax systems across borders. and the chief justice in his dissent, joined by three other , was very savvy to the fact that it is congress who should turn their attention to this issue. i want to turn to the chief justices dissenting opinion. he said any rules that could disrupt such a critical segment of the economy should be undertaken by congress. he went on to say that the decision breezily disregards the cost of this decision will impose on retail and collecting taxes on
e-commerce will likely prove baffling to many retailers. over 10,000 jurisdictions with different tax rates and rules, different product category definitions, and different standards for determining if an out-of-state seller has a substantial presence in a jurisdiction. he was particularly concerned about the burden on small business, where he said the burden would fall disproportionately. even micro-businesses -- we will probably hear more about that from mike. he went on to say the court decision today will certainly have the effect of dampening opportunities for congress. all that the waiver decision physical was that
presence was no longer the standard to be applied. kennedy referred to a rule that is now behind us. he did recognize that there are other elements to the congress clause that would be relevant. and those remain to be litigated. most importantly is the obligation and opportunity chaoticress to take conditions that this decision .as created an set order to it the point here is not that states should be deprived of revenue. i think the court has spoken to that issue. the question is what should be the rules of the road? we believe those rules should be set by congress and involve and a systemrmity
which makes it possible for states to receive revenue that they desire without burdens being imposed on congress. what is necessary to achieve period.a transition it's also congress to set a to allow companies to adapt to the substantial requirements that will be associated with tax collection. >> there is a lot there from george to react to. i want to go back to what the immediate impact is for shopping centers. there's the brick-and-mortar retail community and the wholesale community that are
part of the marketplace. one point is the perfection of the idea that the -- perception of the idea that the internet is tax-free is going to be wiped away. the internet has never been tax-free. the tax has always been owed, and now there is a means to collect it. we have seen hurdles to entry market. visible we have seen a lot of online sellers moving into the marketplace because there is a recognition that multichannel is the best way to reach your customer base. decision, the previous standard under quill, put an artificial hurdle there because the concern of creating a nexis that was not previously there. i think we will see that erased.
i think we will see sellers using pop-up opportunities in shopping centers and other locations. i think there is a positive aspect to this. i think there is a role for congress and the marketplace aalition has been working for to deal with the decision of quill. i think there will be a real push to see how states implement this ruling from justice kennedy. we are not going to see chaos being overblown because it's going to be an orderly process. states are not automatically throwing outlines saying your , but wills are owed
thoughtfully and methodically rollout standards based on the code of law in the coming weeks that will he clear. part of thee streamlined today. thousands ofre are software using the online. it is already being done. it can be done. i think we will see it happens in across. quick so -- so, thank you for holding this discussion. it is obviously very timely, very important, very important in post wayfarer for congress to act. let me first explain where ebay decision.this
i have been at ebay for less than a year and a half so i as much experience on this single issue, but in a year and a half, it is apparent how misunderstanding there is around the mechanics of how this works practically. laws should state not be underestimated as we all go through the next process. ebay is not a retailer. ebay is 23 years old. pure online% marketplace. nothing on the site that you buy or sell is ebay owned. have inventory, warehouses, logistics, trucks, anything like that. we simply connect buyers and
sellers from across the country and around the world, and it is what we have done from day one. is a realhas allowed small businesses and entrepreneurs to come online to be able to sell their goods and reach customers in places they never thought they could before. and that has happened in no art -- to an an overarching framework around how we look at small businesses on the internet and startups, and not overburdening small businesses in ways that create problems, a lot of excessive unnecessaryiance,
red tape and headaches that stop small businesses from becoming the big businesses we have seen before. the courtway from case is pretty simple. we were disappointed. thought 50 years of supreme court precedent should have been left alone. however, when looking at the , it was clear the justices on large retailers and how those retailers operated in the marketplace. what we were incurred by was justice kennedy and the majority thaton being very clear small businesses under the commerce clause interpretation, and as we look to a due process clause interpretation as well, are completely different than
online retailers. ebay is about 6 billion sellers in the u.s. a lot of those are you and i trying to sell things. some of those are the small businesses i talked about. some of those have grown to be big businesses. what we were in kurdish see is that in justice kennedy's opinion, he laid out three as to how a small business should or does receive a reasonable degree of protection. factor one, a business needs to do a fantastic amount of business in a state. if i leave you with anything today, this is the most important. 100,000kota's law is dollars or 200,000 transactions. if you extrapolate that across that's a $37
million-38 million dollar national threshold. --t we are very concerned factor two is no retroactivity, factor three is the implied sales tax and use agreement, of which only 30% of consumers in the u.s. are in that, so there is a lot of work to be done that, that when we look at reasonable degree of protection, we are very concerned with other states because south dakota, a , other stateste may try to come down to that standard rather than look at said, which is a number small enough to keep small businesses out of the equation so they are not subjected to 10,000 different tax laws across jurisdictions
across the country. so, we look at it completely from a small business perspective. we were encouraged by some of what justice kennedy and the decision had to say, but it is clear that it is time for congress to act, and we will talk more about that. >> definitely. thank you for those perspectives. one thing we should touch on and was touched on a little bit are the next steps for the state and local government. states and municipalities will have a thoughtful approach to these laws that might mimic the south dakota statute. i think one of the questions ofund that is even if each the states and local governments has this thoughtful process in
creating these laws, just the sheer number of these governments could lead to chaos despite the best of intentions. so, how do you react to that goodent that even with processes and a precedent with south dakota's law, some states might be trying to lower the and have different legislative features in their laws? >> i think the supreme court provided a pretty clear pathway for states to look at south dakota. i think mike did a great job of outlining what the standards are for other states. them ist that one of the use sales tax agreement that
provides a lot of simplification . there are some important simplifications that get missed. the parity at -- act would have taken 10,000 jurisdictions and made of 45. a number of things have been suggested, and i think the supreme court provided a clear pathway to follow and will be encouraging states to do just that. it is now states rights to question, and i expect there litigation. there has been some rumbling , for instance.a
there may be additional forward tothat comes provide clarification, that -- but we will be encouraging states to follow what the supreme court suggested. she stated that she thought there was an orderly process the states were following, but the iserience we are observing that there is considerable confusion and chaos. for example, some states are applying laws retroactively. some states are going back to october 2017 even though the decision was made in january of 2018. hawaii is going back to january 1 of 2018.
retroactive otheration of laws, states said we are starting our obligation on july 1. it's totally unrealistic for acquires to not only the software but to integrate the software and develop a structure for doing so. this is a matter that requires a period before implementation. congress can step in and address that issue. congress could establish a protect companies from retroactive liability. that's why the arena for the next app is congress. i am pleased that things like mandatory streamlined
participation could be streamlined under the clause. angress could make it requirement to determine whether that element of the majority decision is mandatory. it really cries out for clarity. i don't think electronic retailers or big box stores artistic managed by clarity. >> can i just jump in on one thing you said? the idea that there is going to be chaos in the amp and that we need a moratorium. forgive me, but i don't remember the name of the fourth defendant in the south dakota case. remind me who that was. thank you. if i recall correctly, systemax was in this lawsuit, and south defamatory for
judgment, and they said ok, we will comply. my understanding was they started complying essentially overnight. i realize your response may be there are huge companies versus the small businesses we are concerned about, but it is possible for companies to start complying, particularly with the streamlined tax agreement. there is software paid for by the states. it's not perfect yet, but the idea that we need a moratorium is pushing the envelope too far. >> when wyoming passed an identical law to south dakota's, based on the experience they hadn't south dakota, systemax said we need six months daesch south dakota, systemax said we need six months to a moment this and they gave it to them. think of small or midsize companies that need to have the
accounting staff, the software, the integration, and especially as we are now entering the fourth quarter, which for many is their major quarter for sale. for them to have to carry the burden of dealing with this issue at the same time they have riodr major retail sales pe is not practical for them. they will end up not properly complying and conforming, having liabilities that they did not anticipate, which could have been avoided. i also just -- one of the biggest concerns that we had is that in rejection of the physical presence role, it states that they are now empowered in ways, not absent of what the court has said, to businesses that
have no physical connection to that state to do the collection for those sales. the concern about that, a lot of times, is that it goes back to the old -- you know, the old kind of tax adage -- don't -- you don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree. when you can levy a tax on somebody that is 3000 miles away that has a small to medium-size business and you can say to them that we think you owe a lot more than you paid us, come here to wisconsin tax court, it makes the dynamic of out-of-state jurisdiction cross-border reach really really scary. i think that when we look at wisconsin, what they have come out and said, because governor walker wanted to announce that
there would be a tax cut, is that because of the additional revenue from remote sales tax purchases that wisconsin residents will get a corresponding tax cut. is that whenern they are trying to get every dime, how does that apply to small businesses, like george said, without the sophisticated tax and compliance departments. because wisconsin is relying on a 2013 statute that is not a new statute and it doesn't follow what the court has said. it will result in litigation. we are going to see more and more of that type of thing across the boards. when george talks about a tax moratorium, we are in totals were. there needs to be a pause to allow congress, as well as the ,tates -- let's not forget george argue before the supreme court, so i wouldn't presume to
give the legal analysis here any way --than him, but the the wayfair court did not say that it was not constitutional. basically said they couldn't use physical presence is a determining factor for substantial nexus. now go back to court and figure out the constitution. even south dakota still has to figure out whether or not the law is constitutional. we shouldn't just race to get ahead to provide tax breaks or political benefits in order to try to collect this revenue as quickly as possible. >> i think an important misunderstanding is that the tax is not on the business, it's on the consumer purchasing the product. it is a consumption tax. it is the consumer in wisconsin that would be paying the tax. as the regulation on the business that isn't physically located in the state,
there are a number of examples, but the one that comes to mind for me are wineries. there are a lot of wineries that don't like certain states wineing laws or distribution laws, so they simply say sorry -- we won't sell to those states. if there is a state like where a seller finds it too burdensome to avail itself to that customer base, they can opt out. they can simply say sorry, we don't sell to that state. i think that that is the cost of -- and that's what the decision said. if you were going to do business in the state and avail yourself of the consumers and that's eight, you need to be collecting the sales tax of that state. >> all right, thank you. i think that one of the important questions that we are at now is -- i mean -- we have touched on this quite a bit, it's kind of where can congress
go from here? housesly we are in the office building right now, probably a lot of people are really interested in the lay of the land moving forward in congress. both the majority and dissenting opinions recognize that ultimately this question can only fully be resolved by congress. so, to each of you, i just kind of ask, what would a satisfactory legislation look like. what would a -- what would be kind of a good compromise between kind of where we are at now, where there is a little bit of uncertainty, versus where we were at before, when quill was still in place. >> on one level i dispute the idea that it can only be resolved by congress at this point. from our perspective the states
have always been considered the laboratories of democracy in their is an opportunity for states to go out and work on tailoring legislation that is specific to their needs. i'm not necessarily -- you know, opposed to congressional action here, i'm just worried about a one-size-fits-all approach when you are talking about states rights and federalist principles. south dakota is a different state the new york than south be that weit may will see more litigation as a result of states doing this without also sometimes how we find some of our solutions. i'm not necessarily opposed to congressional action, but if it happens i think we need to be careful to weigh the states rights as you are considering this. this is money that is sorely needed by state and local and it has been sorely needed for some time and i'm not -- i think the liability concerns would be an area that is appropriate for congress to
legislate. my understanding of that comes from the briefing that said it appeared as though at least 40 states have their own sort of state law or constitutional state principles with retroactive liability. i'm just reading that from the briefs and i believe that there may be states that are acting differently there. congressn area where could come in and prevent some of that heart ache for some of those small businesses. i certainly would welcome the opportunity for states to act in this area. >> let me just that some conflict -- in context. in the european union there is executiveax and the arm of the european union came out with a study saying that requiring companies to comply with 28, soon to be 27 different regimes was in fact a burden on among these european
union states and that it was suppressing the development of cross-border sales of electronically. and proposed to instead simplify the system and have it be administered in a base state system similar to what we have in this country in the international fuel tax agreement. so, you take 28 jurisdictions that were too complex in europe, you compare that to the 12,000 jurisdictions that we have in the united states, a cries out for action to simplify that system. the quid pro quo here should be that if states are going to be able to export their tax systems across state orders, as well as minas of halliday's and other jurisdictions, there should be simplification. indirect answer to your question, what should federal legislation look like? it should act quickly to protect against retroactive liability. it's interesting that in those
40 states that joined the colorado brief that you are mentioning, they did not disclaim retroactive liability, but said that each state would have to decide the issue themselves. that's pretty for -- that's a pretty threatening concept, that direct marketers are seriously concerned about and some states are acting in that direction. congress should work to say no retroactive liability. congress should work to establish a moratorium. six months getting past this fourth quarter, leading companies make an adjustment before they are obligated to collect and then adopting very reasonable supplication requirements. in addition to the items that are part of the streamlined sales tax agreements that jennifer is referring to and that mike has referred to, rate simplification should be a part of this. one rate per state for all remote commerce simply makes sense. companies should not be subject not only to 46 different states with sales and use taxes be
subject to audit, but home rule jurisdictions, there are over 500 home rule jurisdictions in the united states the conduct their own audits. one audit on behalf of all of the participating states makes eminent sense. there is no reason why the definition of products should very. y. var why should twix and snickers be subject to different tax treatment in the same state, it doesn't take sense. why should sneakers, athletic equipment in one state and apparel in another? uniform definition simpl simpli. this doesn't take money away from the states. all it does is it takes an american economy that is increasingly reliant on itctronic commerce and rationalizes it, modernizes it, can temporize is it.
these are steps that they can take without in any way hogging states with regard to the revenue that they anticipate getting and will be getting as a result of the wayfair if it -- decision. ? so, i would just like to say that i wish that the points that george just laid out, that we could have had that conversation 5, 4, 3 years ago. before this case moot forward in the supreme court and the supreme court made its decision. i think that a number of those built into the marketplace fairness act in the senate the past in 2013 or in the remote transactions parity act, introduced by a couple of congress is now. arean, i think that those -- a lot of what we have been saying is that there is a pathway to simplification that would have been a win for everyone. but that's not the conversation we have been having. from a practical standpoint, you have to look at votes.
you have to look at states where the votes in the states are. so, that's my short version of streamlined. has 24 states. you don't have california, texas, new york, florida. it's going to be really difficult to get those states to submit their taxing jurisdiction to a third-party group. they basically said they won't do it. so that's where we came to a two pathway approach that would have allowed for those states to be able to be granted collection authority. and those other states would have had to meet some other simplification standards. i think that that, if congress thattake up legislation, will have to be the practical conversation that we are having and there are a number of other conversations and topics that
need to be dealt with with foreign sellers with retroactivity. certainly there are functional and fairness issues along with that. i can tell you that for the marketplace fairness coalition, our membership is split at this point. we have members that would like to see signification. we have members that believe the states should have the ability to move forward and implement their own laws using their restored rights under way fair. standpoint,ical there will be challenges to moving quickly. let's let the process work and have some regular order. let's, i think, probably, hearing would be at the minimum an opportunity to discuss more robustly with stakeholders. always open to having conversations to see what's possible. i think that there will be some practical political challenges
moving quickly. ? everything about simplification, clarity, the need for federal legislation, we definitely agree with that. i do think that we are going to see significant legislation throughout the states as they try to meet these basic thresholds as set out why the court. the one thing that i would add is what the marketplace fairness act and of remote transactions parity act both failed to do, among other things, is a real small business exemption, like south dakota, that truly protects those small businesses that are starting up, getting off their feet, and building a business. that we see on ebay and we see it across the country every day. .1 million
it's like that austin powers movie where he's like $1 million, right? and everyone laughs? we look at that from a business perspective and we say a $1 million small business for national sales, we have businesses on ebay that have three employees that are taking home $40,000 per year and they sell $1 million in sales. it's not an accurate depiction of a number. to date, no one has ever been able to give us any data as to why $1 million. now we have a standard. south dakota is at 37 million in the national standard. we are not saying that it has to be that high, but it has to be in a level by sales or employees that truly takes into account the businesses size, the sophistication of their departments and how they can fit that. i think that is part of any federal legislation, leaving those small businesses out of it , it makes complete sense.
, it's not in these tiny micro and small businesses and what they are doing online. theink that in 17 out of 18, wayfair being the exception of the top retailers online currently, collect and remit in all 50 states. justice roberts in his dissent said that 86 to 93 of the top 100 currently collect and remit. the big retailers out there, that's not an argument for ebay to have. but for them, a small seller exemption is part of any mandatory and if we could get to a real where it was number, i think we could get to a much easier place on how to find a permanent congressional federal bill. great. so, i want to leave time for audience questions. before we get to that, i think we would be remiss if we didn't
talk a little bit about that up archer of justice kennedy from the supreme court and what that means to this area of jurisprudence. obviously he wrote the majority opinion and all of d.c. is on the edge of their seat right now, waiting for the announcement of the new supreme court justice tonight. , ifwith his retirement there is more litigation in this area and it gets to the supreme court, what kind of effect will his retirement have? ? well, interesting question. taxation, george can probably speak to this better than i can, but taxation, when you look at supreme court cases, they don't neatly divide along sort of the more traditional liberal and conservative lines. you look at the lineup of this
and the dissent is that the chief justice, with justice kagan and sotomayor, then brier. you have got justice ginsburg, along with kennedy, alito, thomas, and gorsuch. it's really hard to predict what the replacement of justice kennedy would do in this area without knowing the specific justice is and what their tax law ideology is, what their state rights principles are, their federalism principles. i guess that's just my way of punting that this is an interesting question but i really wouldn't be able to know until i knew who the actual justice is. ? i think that even after you know, it's difficult to predict. you look at this very strange collection on the majority side havingthe minority side, the chief justice joining with liberal members of the court, having justice ginsburg joining
with conservative members of the court, i think the court does not have a great appetite for state tax cases. it took 25 years before they decided to revisit this issue. if i am practicing law 25 years from now, matt, i would be glad to give you a comment on where i think that tension might go. [laughter] -- that bench might go. [laughter] >> it would have been a lot better if justice kennedy had retired 10 days earlier. [laughter] >> in all seriousness, justice kennedy had been very clear on his -- both in the dna case and reviewwanting this to quilt. we understood that and are thankful again that he left language in the opinion for the future court to look at that makes a very clear distinction, when looking at a commerce
clause, how states should be treating thresholds in small businesses. , oneetely to be determined other factor i think we should all think about, too, that is a concern out there for a lot of other industries, right? on ebay , retail types goods, that is what we are all talking about today, but what does this opinion do for other types of services, right? a lot of these taxes are goods and services. how do states start to look at professional services. different things like streaming services, those types of things, it's a real concern and it's something that state legislatures, congress, and the courts will be looking a lot at, so it will be interesting to see what a new justice as well as the existing justices, how they view some of that. toright, so now i would like
open up the panel to questions. we have about 10 minutes left, so probably three or four questions. >> it would be a mistake to go home to your boss and say it presence isiscal dead. that's not what happened. the supreme court, george says, don't count on us in our 50-year-old physical presence role. we will make that go away, but congress can make physical presence the rule again. and then they could use that, what did you call it question for otherpro quo simplifications that states could take to overcome physical presence. physical presence isn't dead, but the supreme court said that their version is no longer the law. >> in his dissenting opinion, the chief justice went through a series of different possibilities with regards to how congress could act, including restoring the physical
presence test or establishing one and having an exception for it for countries -- countries, for states that simplify and make more uniform their tax systems. and one of the things i am encouraged by and i agree with forifer on, it's time industry, the states, the big-box retailers to have a serious conversation about what an american consumption tax system should look like. the issue isn't whether the state should be deprived of revenue, the issue is how you can simplify the tax system to make it work for all of the participants. i would hope that the panelists on this table, the people attending this committee hearing would see congressional action as an opportunity for that kind of discussion, followed by real action for greater simplification. >> another question? >> right here.
[inaudible] outside the u.s., but that sell in different states in the u.s.. >> that is a really good question, because the results of the wayfair decision, if it what it has done is liberate states to be able to tax without rules, which i hope that is not how it is interpreted, but at least some states are viewing it that way, that there is no restriction on them, states can enforce tax liability through the full faith and credit clause of the u.s. constitution. but there is no way for them to effectively enforce those requirements on companies outside the united states. the real effect is to advantage companies located in canada or for that matter, located in hong kong or the u.k.. because the customs, u.s. customs will not intercept goods for the purposes of enforcing state sales and use taxes, so it
really is an action by the supreme court, probably inadvertently, to favor foreign competitors over u.s. companies. >> a question for george and possibly mike, your comments have been focused mainly on the sales and use tax obligation that the small businesses will have to shoulder. do you see any implications from the elimination of the physical presence test for other types of, let's say local business obligations where counties may try to export to nonresident sellers? those are often based on gross receipts, or other types of business regulations that may be exported? thes your question whether wayfair decision has other implications on different kinds of taxes? ? am not thinking about state income tax, i'm thinking more about local business licenses.
>> there's a brave new frontier here. can tax and, states regular companies located within their jurisdiction, but not outside of it. wayfair has really introduced the notion that as long as companies have some kind of contact with the state, they may be subject to regulatory obligations. tax collection is a regulatory obligation, not a tax obligation . we don't know the limits of that and i fully suspect that states are going to attempt to export that. california already says that if you want to sell eggs in california, we were govern the size of the cages of your hens in ohio. there may be no limit to the ambition that states have to regulate companies outside of their borders.
>> i do say that there is a market limit to it. if you don't want to sell eggs in california, don't sell eggs in california. but it is a big market, right question mark if you want to avail yourself to that market, you will live by their regulations. decision, it's a business decision. licensing, or you kind of go down a rabbit hole like that, you, you don't do business there. i don't know that that is something that has even been discussed. states are so excited about getting this authority, they are not contemplating any kind of expansion of it too, like i said, to some rabbit hole. you, jennifer,d that the purpose of the commerce clause was to create a free
market among states. so, when your reaction to issues of taxation's and regulations are -- if you don't want to sell to those states and be subject to their regulations, don't sell, the effect of that is to constrain the market, antithetical to the objective of the commerce clause. >> if i could just add to that? we should all take a step back and think -- do we want a economying national where you don't want to sell into california -- i don't think there are a lot of egg sellers on ebay, but i will check. but let's say you don't want to sell a specific type of electronic because you are overregulated, but an import from china, not subjected to the same thing easily gets in? i don't think that's the type of functioning national economy want to have.
as we go forward to your question through the the next phase of this, we should really be thinking that our ability to get to those foreign sellers is completely different than the domestic sellers. it can, you know, it can get into a whole lot of there he different sticky issues. >> i agree. speaking for ics in the, we have that.icant concerns about we can join together in that conversation with a more constructive dynamic perhaps under the way fair standard. standard. >> looks like we are about out of time now. i want to thank you all so much, thank you for coming. this has been a congressional internet congress academy briefing and we will have another one of coming on july 23. thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,
this topic, type online sales tax into the search bar for our homepage, www.c-span.org. you can find more coverage there, including the supreme court oral argument in the case. coming up today, formerly the national council on la raza will hold a discussion on civil rights in downtown d.c. the scheduled time for the discussion has changed and we will be taking you there live in about one hour, 2 p.m. eastern.
some of the expected speakers are [indiscernible] you can watch it online on c-span.org or listen live with the c-span radio app. >> president donald trump will announce his nominee for the supreme court, filling the .acancy left by anthony kennedy watch the announcement live tonight at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. tonight, on "the communicators," a stanford professor discusses "experience on-demand," about virtual reality technology and its potential for the future. >> when done well, the front of your brain says it's not real but the back of your brain, the part in charge of keeping you alive is terrified. whenever we bring -- whenever it
is children on a school field trip or the ceo of a fortune 10 company, that the first thing we do. we want to establish that it feels real because if i show you that it feels real and you are unwilling to take a step on the plank, as most of the people are, once i have sold you that it is so real that you are not even willing to step on a thank -- a fake plank, then we can have a real conversation, can we use it to change attitudes -- attitudes about racism, climate change, these really hard topics that you have to experience to understand. >> tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two. the c-span bus is traveling across the country, on our 50 capitals to her. it stopped in fairbanks, alaska, the mostlks for important issue in alaska is. >> the environment. dutch harbor is the number one fishing port in the nation in terms of volume. as you can imagine, with
environmental changes in my community, the industry has the potential to be wiped out. >> i'm running for governor of alaska. i was born and raised in the state of alaska and i have three platform issues that we are needing to take care of in this state. one is abortion, one is the budget plan, one is protecting the permanent fund dividend, giving that money back to the people from the legislative action that took place two years ago and the one coming this year . i want to give it all back with interest. i think it's the right of the be able to keep the resources that belong to the shareholders of this state. thank you very much. >> what has been on my mind sufferingthe children throughout the united states. people who came here through the borders, etc.. i'm kind of upset with some of these attorneys general who have
not taken mr. trump and others to task for creating this child abuse. that's essentially what it is. calledhodist church has their own parishioner, mr. sessions, charged him with child abuse. i would like to see the slam some oferal these legislators for allowing this to happen. most of all i want to welcome people that want to visit alaska . we have a lot to offer here, beautiful scenery, real nice people. lots of kids were having fun. i would be remiss if i did and say this is santa claus, wishing you a very merry christmas. >> the big issue for me is the future of alaska. i'm concerned about it and at the same time, i'm really optimistic about it. i'm concerned because we have the highest health care and energy costs in the country.
highest unemployment in the country, lowest educational attainment in the country. a rapidly changing environment with this investment in higher education. i'm optimistic, though, despite all of that because our people strongly support higher education. there is a demand for health care in the state. we lead the world in arctic research and our university has a plan and we are committed to it and committed to investing in the plan to build our people, to strengthen our future so that we nationallympetitive and internationally as we look to the next century. >> be sure to join us july 21 and 22nd, when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> ahead of the discussion on civil rights coming u