[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S10874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 1552

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in the matter of Internet taxes. As 
you and others across this country who are following this issue very 
closely well know, the 3-year moratorium on access taxes as well as the 
3-year moratorium on discriminatory taxes on the Internet that had been 
passed by the Senate and the House 3 years ago expired on Sunday, 
October 21--just a couple of days ago.
  The Internet is important to our economy. The taxes that could be 
imposed on the Internet would be harmful to the economy. It would be 
harmful to technology. I think it would be very harmful especially to 
lower-income families and thereby widen the digital divide. In my view, 
there is no time to dawdle; there is no time for conference committees.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 1552, the House-passed 2-year clean extension of 
the Internet access tax moratorium currently being held at the desk, 
and that it be considered, read three times, and passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I shall 
object--let me say to the Senator from Virginia, he and I have had long 
discussions about this subject. I very much respect his views. He is 
proposing a 2-year extension of the Internet tax moratorium. I proposed 
an 8-month extension last week, I believe it was. But my 8-month 
extension to June 30 of next year included an additional proviso, and 
that proviso, at the end of the legislation, would have had Congress on 
record saying to both State governments and also to Internet and other 
remote sellers that we want them to, A, simplify the sales and use tax 
system and, B, when that is done, be able to allow the remote sellers 
to collect the sales and use taxes on the sale.
  There are two issues here. The Senator from Virginia and I do not 
disagree on the first. I am not someone who supports taxing access to 
the Internet. As far as I am concerned, we can extend the prohibition 
on that forever. I also do not support punitive and discriminatory 
taxation with respect to Internet sales. So we have no disagreement 
about that. But however there is a second area of difficulty. The 
Senator from Virginia raises the first.
  If I might continue under my reservation, Mr. President, the first 
issue is taxation with respect to the Internet. It actually is taxation 
with respect to remote sales, which is a broader issue. The second is 
the question, How do you effect a collection of the tax that is already 
owed on remote sales? As the Senator from Virginia knows, almost no one 
is paying that use tax and States are losing a substantial amount of 
money, most of which is used for funding education.
  So what I want to do is find a way to solve both problems, not just 
one. And on the first piece, the Senator from Virginia and I will not 
find great disagreement. I understand his view and will support his 
view with respect to extension and prohibiting taxing access, et 
cetera.
  I hope he will similarly support my view that we also ought to solve 
the other problems State and local governments have, and remote sellers 
have, for that matter, with respect to the complexity of the sales tax 
and the collection or lack of collection of sales taxes and use taxes. 
My colleague from Wyoming is, in fact, working on another piece of 
legislation on that issue even as we speak. I know he has consulted 
with the Senator from Virginia.
  So, Mr. President, for those reasons, I object to the request by the 
Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________