Greater uniformity for remote commerce, including a single sales and use tax rate per state, as well as simplified definitions and procedures
for the administration and collection of sales taxes. States that meet these requirements could force remote vendors to remit that state’s sales tax on goods purchased over the Internet or through the mail.
Source: Press Release, “Internet Tax Freedom Act”
, Mar 19, 1998
Voted YES on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes.
Congressional Summary: The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 authorizes each state to require all sellers with sales exceeding $1 million in the preceding calendar year to collect and remit sales and use taxes, but only if complying with the minimum simplification requirements relating to the administration of such taxes & audits.Opponent's Argument for voting No (Cnet.com): Online retailers are objecting to S.743, saying it's unreasonable to expect small businesses to comply with the detailed--and sometimes conflicting--regulations of nearly 10,000 government tax collectors. S.743 caps years of lobbying by the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represent big box stores. President Obama also supports the bill.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Sen. COLLINS. This bill rectifies a fundamental unfairness in our current system. Right now, Main Street businesses have to collect sales taxes
on every transaction, but outbecause -of-state Internet sellers don't have to charge this tax, they enjoy a price advantage over the mom-and-pop businesses. This bill would allow States to collect sales taxes on Internet sales, thereby leveling the playing field with Main Street businesses. This bill does not authorize any new or higher tax, nor does it impose an Internet tax. It simply helps ensure that taxes already owed are paid.
Opponent's Argument for voting No: Sen. WYDEN: This bill takes a function that is now vested in government--State tax collection--and outsources that function to small online retailers. The proponents say it is not going to be hard for small businesses to handle this--via a lot of new computer software and the like. It is, in fact, not so simple. There are more than 5,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country. Some of them give very different treatment for products and services that are almost identical.
Reference: Marketplace Fairness Act;
Bill S.743
; vote number 13-SV113
on May 6, 2013
Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure.
Vote on overriding Pres. Bush's veto. The bill reauthorizes the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA): to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States. The bill authorizes flood control, navigation, and environmental projects and studies by the Army Corps of Engineers. Also authorizes projects for navigation, ecosystem or environmental restoration, and hurricane, flood, or storm damage reduction in 23 states including Louisiana.
Veto message from President Bush:
This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns. Each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' main missions. However, this authorization bill costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete. This bill does not set priorities. I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities.
Reference: Veto override on Water Resources Development Act;
Bill Veto override on H.R. 1495
; vote number 2007-406
on Nov 8, 2007
Voted YES on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007.
An amendment to provide an additional $550,000,000 for Amtrak for fiscal year 2007. Voting YEA would increase Amtrak funding from $900 million to $1.45 billion. Voting NAY would keep Amtrak funding at $900 million. Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because: - [In my state], Philadelphia's 30th Street station is the second busiest train station nationally, with over 3.7 million boarding a year. And 3,000 people are employed by Amtrak in Pennsylvania. Amtrak and the health of Amtrak is important.
- Last year the Senate transportation bill had $1.45 billion for Amtrak, which is obviously more than the $900 million in the current budget proposal. I am offering an amendment to increase that funding from the $900 million which is in the bill right now to the $1.45 billion level and adding $550 million.
- I support funding through the section 920 account [without a tax increase]. We have seen that without raising the cap or without raising taxes, the Senate has been able to
come up with a robust number for Amtrak which I will support within the context of a responsible budget.
- We have spent less money on Amtrak in the last 35 years than we will on highways in this year alone. And highways don't pay for themselves, even with the gas tax. Neither does mass transit, either in this country or anywhere else in the world. But we subsidize them because they improve the quality of our lives.
- We have never provided the kind of commitment to Amtrak that we have for other modes of transportation, and this amendment will be an important step to getting Amtrak off the starvation budgets that it has subsisted on for far too long.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because: - The problem with that is there is no money in the section 920 account. If we want to talk about "funny money" financing, that is it--taking money from an account that has no money. This whole budget takes money we don't have. The result is we keep running up the debt.
Reference: Santorum amendment to Transportation funding bill;
Bill S.Amdt.3015 to S.Con.Res.83
; vote number 2006-052
on Mar 15, 2006
Voted YES on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates.
Vote to pass a joint resolution expressing congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission. The rule would therefore have no force or effect. The rule in question deals with broadcast media ownership and would allow media conglomerates to own more television stations and newspapers.
Reference: FCC Media Ownership bill;
Bill S J Res 17/H.J.RES.72
; vote number 2003-348
on Sep 16, 2003
Chief information officer to digitize federal government.
Carper adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Performance-Based Government
The strong anti-government sentiments of the early 1990s have subsided, but most Americans still think government is too bureaucratic, too centralized, and too inefficient.
In Washington and around the country, a second round of “reinventing government” initiatives should be launched to transform public agencies into performance-based organizations focused on bottom-line results. Many public services can be delivered on a competitive basis among public and private entities with accountability for results. Public-private partnerships should become the rule, not the exception, in delivering services. Civic and voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America’s social problems.
When the federal government provides grants to states and localities to perform public services, it should give the broadest possible administrative flexibility while demanding and rewarding specific results.
Government information and services at every level should be thoroughly “digitized,” enabling citizens to conduct business with public agencies online.
Goals for 2010 - Require public agencies to measure results and publish information on performance.
- Consolidate narrow federal-state grants into broad performance-based grants that offer greater flexibility in return for greater accountability for results.
- Make it possible for citizens to conduct all business with government online.
- Create a chief information officer to drive the digitization of the federal government.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC8 on Aug 1, 2000
Fund nanomaterial research project for car batteries.
Carper co-sponsored funding nanomaterial research project for car batteries
A bill to promote the future of the American automobile industry, and for other purposes.
ADVANCED ENERGY INITIATIVE FOR VEHICLES:- To enable and promote, in partnership with industry, comprehensive development, demonstration, and commercialization of a wide range of electric drive components, systems, and vehicles using diverse electric drive transportation technologies;
- to make critical public investments to help private industry, institutions of higher education, National Laboratories, and research institutions to expand innovation, industrial growth, and jobs in the United States;
- to accelerate the widespread commercialization of all types of electric drive vehicle technology into all sizes and applications of vehicles, including commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicles; and
- to improve the energy efficiency of and reduce the petroleum use in transportation.
The Secretary shall conduct a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for electric drive transportation technology, including:- high-capacity, high-efficiency batteries;
- control system development and power train development and integration for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicles, and engine dominant hybrid electric vehicles;
- nanomaterial technology applied to both battery and fuel cell systems;
- large-scale demonstrations, testing, and evaluation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in different applications with different batteries and control systems, including military applications; mass market passenger and light-duty truck applications; private fleet applications; and medium- and heavy-duty applications.
Source: American Automobile Industry Promotion Act (S.1055/H.R.1915) 07-S1055 on Mar 29, 2007
Website for competitive federal awards.
Carper co-sponsored website for competitive federal awards
A bill to strengthen transparency and accountability in Federal spending.
- Improving application programming interface and website data elements.
- Recipient performance transparency. [For federal awards, show on internet...]
- a unique award identifier that identifies each individual award vehicle;
- the date that the financial award was made;
- the agency and department as well as subagencies and suboffices that have authorized the Federal award;
- in negotiated procurements, the highest, lowest, and median offered price among all technically acceptable proposals or bids.
- For all contracts after 2010, [show on internet...]
- both a copy in a format that reproduces the original image of each page and a copy in searchable text format of the request for proposals, the announcement of the award, the contract, and the scope of work to be performed;
- information about the extent of competition in making the award, including the number of qualified bids or proposals during the competitive process, and if the award was not competed, the legal authority and specific rationale for making the award without full and open competition;
- PRESENTATION OF DATA- The website shall present information about Federal awards providing search results for novices displayed in summary form; and
- providing more detailed information for more sophisticated users
- Performance Transparency- performance of individual contractors and recipients of financial assistance starting with awards given in fiscal year 2008 including an assessment of the quality of work performed on Federal awards during the past 5 years; and information about Federal audit disputes and resolutions.
Source: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability Act (S.3077) 2008-S3077 on Jun 3, 2008
|
|
|
Other candidates on Technology: |
Tom Carper on other issues: |
DE Gubernatorial:
David Lamar Williams
John Carney
DE Senatorial:
Chris Coons
Chuck Boyce
Gene Truono
Jessica Scarane
Rob Arlett
DE politicians
DE Archives
|
Senate races 2019-20:
AK:
Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Gross(I)
AL:
Jones(D,incumbent)
vs.Sessions(R)
vs.Moore(R)
vs.Mooney(R)
vs.Rogers(D)
vs.Tuberville(R)
vs.Byrne(R)
vs.Merrill(R)
AR:
Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Mahony(D)
vs.Whitfield(I)
vs.Harrington(L)
AZ:
McSally(R,incumbent)
vs.Kelly(D)
CO:
Gardner(R,incumbent)
vs.Hickenlooper(D)
vs.Madden(D)
vs.Baer(D)
vs.Walsh(D)
vs.Johnston(D)
vs.Romanoff(D)
vs.Burnes(D)
vs.Williams(D)
DE:
Coons(D,incumbent)
vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2:
Isakson(R,resigned)
Loeffler(R,appointed)
vs.Lieberman(D)
vs.Collins(R)
vs.Carter(D)
GA-6:
Perdue(R,incumbent)
vs.Tomlinson(D)
vs.Ossoff(D)
vs.Terry(D)
IA:
Ernst(R,incumbent)
vs.Graham(D)
vs.Mauro(D)
vs.Greenfield(D)
ID:
Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.Harris(D)
vs.Jordan(D)
IL:
Durbin(D,incumbent)
vs.Curran(R)
vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS:
Roberts(R,retiring)
vs.LaTurner(R)
vs.Wagle(R)
vs.Kobach(R)
vs.Bollier(D)
vs.Lindstrom(R)
vs.Grissom(D)
vs.Marshall(R)
KY:
McConnell(R,incumbent)
vs.McGrath(D)
vs.Morgan(R)
vs.Cox(D)
vs.Tobin(D)
vs.Booker(D)
LA:
Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.Pierce(D)
|
MA:
Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
vs.Ayyadurai(R)
vs.Kennedy(D)
ME:
Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Sweet(D)
vs.Gideon(D)
vs.Rice(D)
MI:
Peters(D,incumbent)
vs.James(R)
MN:
Smith(D,incumbent)
vs.Carlson(D)
vs.Lewis(R)
vs.Overby(G)
MS:
Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Espy(D)
vs.Bohren(D)
MT:
Daines(R,incumbent)
vs.Bullock(D)
vs.Collins(D)
vs.Mues(D)
vs.Driscoll(R)
vs.Giese(L)
NC:
Tillis(R,incumbent)
vs.E.Smith(D)
vs.S.Smith(R)
vs.Cunningham(D)
vs.Tucker(R)
vs.Mansfield(D)
NE:
Sasse(R,incumbent)
vs.Janicek(R)
NH:
Shaheen(D,incumbent)
vs.Martin(D)
vs.Bolduc(R)
vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ:
Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Singh(R)
vs.Meissner(R)
NM:
Udall(D,retiring)
vs.Clarkson(R)
vs.Oliver(D)
vs.Lujan(D)
vs.Rich(R)
OK:
Inhofe(R,incumbent)
vs.Workman(D)
OR:
Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Romero(R)
vs.Perkins(R)
RI:
Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Waters(R)
SC:
Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Tinubu(D)
vs.Harrison(D)
SD:
Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Borglum(R)
vs.Ahlers(D)
TN:
Alexander(R,incumbent)
vs.Sethi(R)
vs.Mackler(D)
vs.Hagerty(R)
TX:
Cornyn(R,incumbent)
vs.Hegar(D)
vs.Hernandez(D)
vs.Bell(D)
vs.Ramirez(D)
vs.West(D)
VA:
Warner(D,incumbent)
vs.Taylor(R)
vs.Gade(R)
WV:
Capito(R,incumbent)
vs.Swearengin(D)
vs.Ojeda(D)
WY:
Enzi(R,incumbent)
vs.Ludwig(D)
vs.Lummis(R)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
|
Contact info:
Email Contact Form
Fax Number:
202-228-2190
Mailing Address:
Senate Office SH-513, Washington, DC 20510
|
Page last updated: Jul 18, 2020
