[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 137 (Wednesday, October 1, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            H.R. 49, THE INTERNET TAX NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 1, 2003

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my concerns about H.R. 
49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. I support extending the 
moratorium on internet access taxes, but this legislation goes far 
beyond that. It will costs cities around the country millions of 
dollars. This bill could have a lasting impact on our states and 
localities ability to collect existing telecommunications taxes.
  Illinois and Chicago do not charge internet access taxes, however, 
the bill's definition of ``internet service'' is so broad and open 
ended that it could prevent state and local governments from collect 
existing telecommunication taxes. I am afraid that localities and 
states will not be allowed to charge existing taxes on voice and fax 
transmissions that are bundled with internet service.
  In the City of Chicago, for example, the expansion of the term 
``internet access'' could mean millions of dollars in tax revenue 
annually, which is currently used to pay for first responders, 
education, and other essential services.
  Declining federal support and the failed economic policies of the 
Bush Administration have placed an awful burden on states and 
localities across the country. In the past few years Chicago and 
Illinois have been forced to cut funding for essential services. This 
legislation could make a bad situation worse.
  Extending the moratorium on internet access taxes is prudent public 
policy. Nonetheless, I am concerned that the bill's definition of 
``internet access'' would have a detrimental impact on cities and 
states across the country. The rights of our states and localities to 
collect existing telecommunications should not be placed in jeopardy.




                          ____________________