[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 161 (Friday, November 7, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14250-S14254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATES AND THE INTERNET TAX NONDISCRIMINATION BILL
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Mr. Carper, the Senator from Delaware,
is on the floor. He may want to speak in a few minutes. I have a few
comments I would like to make about the debate we are having about
unfunded mandates and Internet access taxes.
First, I thank Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce
Committee, who has been working very hard to help bridge what is a
fairly big philosophical difference of opinion some of us have, and I
express my appreciation to the leader, Bill Frist, because he created
some time today and last night for us to debate and talk about the
issues. I think we have made some progress.
But here is where we are. As with most of our debates in the Senate,
we have two valid principles in which most of us believe: First is, no
taxation of Internet access. I have yet to run into a Senator who
really wants to tax Internet access. Virtually all of us are willing to
keep State and local governments from taxing Internet access.
I am a little bit of a purist on unfunded Federal mandates, with
Washington politics telling State and local officials what to do, but
the amendment which I have offered, and which Senator Carper and others
have joined in, would ban State and local government taxation of
Internet access.
That is the first principle. We want the Internet to grow. We don't
want local taxation. We don't want taxation that discriminates.
The second principle is, we don't want unfunded Federal mandates.
That may be a little bit of a Washington word, but most people know
what it means. It means Senators and Congressmen who come to Washington
and pass laws and claim credit and send the bill to the school boards
and Governors and mayors. Nothing makes local officials madder. This
Congress, to its great credit, since 1995, has been very resolved
against unfunded Federal mandates. So we don't want to tax Internet
access and we don't want unfunded Federal mandates.
We haven't found out how to put the two together. We have offered a
solution. There are really two basic ones out there. Ours would be to
just take the current law, the current ban on taxing Internet access or
allowing State and local governments to make that decision, and extend
it for 2 years, and then to make a change to minimize discrimination
between providers, providers being phone companies and the cable
companies. That is our proposal.
The proposal on the other side was to create a much broader
definition of what we mean by Internet access which would create a huge
unfunded Federal mandate and take away, we believe, billions of dollars
from State and local government tax bases, cause them to cut services
or raise taxes on many other things, and make it permanent. That is the
proposal.
Our argument is that our 2-year extension of the current law, with
one adjustment to level the playing field between telephone companies
and cable companies, is better for the country than a permanent
installation of a very broad definition. So the issues are duration and
definition.
The reasons for our amendment are these. One, we want to preserve the
original intent of the Congress. The 1998 law was to keep the basic
Internet access tax free. By that we mean, when you hook up your
computer to AOL, the intention is that that is tax free. In our
amendment, even as the telecommunications industry moves more on to the
Internet, that would continue to be tax free. It is really a
significant infringement on State and local prerogatives to decide what
taxes to raise
[[Page S14251]]
on their own. We want to make sure no one will be able to tax e-mail or
surfing the Web. We want to make sure that States don't lose the bulk
of their telecommunications revenues. Those were our major goals.
The opponents have raised many objections to these ideas. They say
the Internet is so valuable that it should not be taxed. Well, we don't
tax it any more than it is now. We don't allow taxing any more than it
is now. And it makes me wonder. I agree the Internet is valuable. I
supported the first moratorium. But it is a grown-up business now. It
is no baby in a crib. We had 3 years and then 2 years. Now we are
talking about another 2 years.
The telephone is valuable. Television is valuable. Airplanes are
valuable. The automobile was a great invention. We don't tell State and
local governments what to do about their tax policy for those
businesses. The Internet is not a baby in a crib anymore. It can at
least afford to hire some of the most expensive lobbyists; we know
that.
Then they talk about interstate commerce, that we are messing around
with interstate commerce when we talk about telling States what to do
about taxing Internet access. I read the Constitution again to make
sure I was right. Article I, section 8, says Congress has the power to
regulate commerce among the States, but it doesn't say exactly what to
do about it. It means Congress can impose limits. They can do some
things.
There is also another provision called the 10th amendment which
reserves all the powers to the States unless they are specifically
delegated to the Congress. That is where the whole prohibition against
unfunded Federal mandates came from. That is why, in 1995, this
Congress passed as its first bill S. 1 of the new Republican Congress,
to stop unfunded Federal mandates--Congress telling Governors and
mayors and school boards what services to provide and how to spend
their money.
As long as we are allowing States to make decisions about taxation on
telephones and telegraphs and bus tickets and airline tickets and
severance taxes, all of which are interstate commerce, I don't know why
we worry so much about that.
There is the assertion that we might be taxing broadband. That is
Internet service delivered by telephone and cable companies. We are
really not taxing anything. We are trying to decide whether we should
write some rules for what States should do. Broadband is a wonderful
thing. It is always just around the bend. We want to it come. What we
have said is that except for grandfathered States that now tax DSL
Internet phone service, it can't be taxed in the next 2 years. We are
just trying to level the playing field for 2 years, as we take the
current law and extend it for that period of time.
Multiple taxation would be banned under our amendment, just as it is
today. Discriminatory taxation is banned under our amendment, just as
it is today. Taxes on e-mail and basic Internet access, banned, just as
they are now.
So it seems to us our amendment is a good one. We are willing to
continue to visit and talk with the Senator from Virginia and the
Senator from Oregon, who have worked very hard and believe very
strongly in this. But our arguments are, the Congress has promised not
to pass any more unfunded mandates. We have made it a violation of the
Budget Act to do so. We should respect that as much as we possibly can.
No. 2, their proposal is potentially a huge unfunded Federal mandate
which we have promised not to do.
We believe our amendment is better at reconciling two valid
principles: One, continuing the ban on basic Internet access and, two,
making an adjustment to create a more level playing field between cable
and telephone while making a minimum offense to the principle of
unfunded Federal mandates.
We also believe that a short term--a couple of years--allows us to
craft wise decisions about what is happening in a rapidly changing
technology, and theirs would impose an inordinately broad definition of
what we mean by Internet access permanently or for an unreasonably long
period of time.
There was a letter sent around from the Republican Policy Committee
which asserted that the objective of the unfunded mandate law was to
stop the Federal Government from imposing affirmative duties or
regulations on the States. It basically argues that the Allen-Wyden
amendment is not an unfunded mandate. All I can think is that that memo
didn't make it all the way through the vetting process. It argues that
the unfunded mandate law Congress passed in 1995 doesn't apply to
situations where the Congress might say, for example, States may not
collect taxes on telephones and telegraphs. If we were to say that,
that would mean State and local governments would be deprived of $20
billion of their tax base next year, and they would have to raise taxes
on food or medicine or income or property or something else, or cut
services.
By the very plain terms of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, it
includes both affirmative actions. For example, when we pass a bill
that says Memphis shall do thus and so for disabled children but we
only pay for half of the cost, that is one kind of unfunded mandate.
But according to the Congressional Budget Office and the plain
English in the 1995 law, it also includes the definition of direct cost
of a mandate, ``the amounts State and local governments would be
prohibited from raising in revenues to comply with the mandate.'' An
unfunded Federal mandate also includes our telling the States you
cannot raise revenues from these sources. If we think it is so
important to do that, we are supposed to pay that.
I am afraid in this case the Allen-Wyden amendment, while they have
worked hard to try to narrow it, still raises the possibility many
billions of dollars would be lost to State and local tax bases. In
other words, we would be imposing a multibillion dollar unfunded
Federal mandate on State and local governments.
We believe there is a better way, that we can continue the ban on
Internet access, but do it in a way that minimizes the unfunded Federal
mandate. Because the leader asked us to, and we want to, we will be
working over the weekend, and our staffs are meeting this afternoon. We
will be working early next week, and we hope we can come to some
agreement in a very short period of time.
I am grateful to Senator Carper for his leadership in helping us come
up with a sensible path in the future. I wanted to give that report on
the status of where we are.
Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
Mr. CARPER. Let me just say if I have provided leadership, I know the
Senator from Tennessee has. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work
closely with the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Voinovich, Senator
Graham of Florida, and others on this issue. I reflect on the role we
as Senators are trying to play in this and the disadvantage some of us
operate from. The Presiding Officer and I serve on the Banking
Committee together. If the issue before us is like the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, we have a fairly good idea, using our background and
experience, as to what is fair and reasonable; what makes sense and
what is good public policy. If the issue is energy policy, I think our
background prepares us to make reasonably good judgments there.
When we come to issues with respect to the Internet and the
transmission of information over the Internet, for a lot of our
colleagues--certainly this one--it doesn't take long to get in over our
heads. If we are honest, I think most will say that. In order to help
us through a difficult issue like the one we have now, whether there
should be a continuation of a moratorium on Internet taxes and in what
form, and should it be extended, we have bright people who work on our
staffs, and we speak to people from the outside, whether they happen to
be from the industry or State and local governments, to round out our
knowledge. But it is still a different result.
For this Senator--I suspect I speak for the other Senators here at
this moment--what I think we can maybe best do is figure out the fair
thing to do. I always like to talk about the Golden Rule, to treat
others like I want to be treated. I try to apply that even in this
instance. If you look back to the 1995 law Senator Alexander talked
about, the genesis of that law was Governors like he and I used to be,
and even mayors in places like Gillette, WY, who didn't want the
Federal Government to tell them what to do and not give them
[[Page S14252]]
the money to do it. Similarly, whether you are a Governor or mayor, we
didn't much appreciate the Federal Government coming in and saying we
are going to take away your ability to raise revenues as you see fit
and not make up for the shortfall.
That sense of outrage sort of grew out of State and local officials,
and eventually came here and compelled the Congress to take steps to
enact the 1995 legislation, banning unfunded mandates both under
spending and on the revenue side. Today you cannot do that. For the
most part, Congress and the President since have done a good job
adhering to that law.
What is before us now is how do we be true to the spirit of the
unfunded mandates law, not taking away the revenue base of the States
and, at the same time, trying to be fair to consumers. People want to
have access to the Internet, whether residential consumers or
businesses, and how do we manage to be fair to the businesses that are
providing these services? I am not going to suggest any of that either.
If I could, we would have finished before this week and we would all be
in Wyoming, Tennessee, or Delaware, doing other things. But we are not
there yet.
The hangup is, as the Senator suggested, the moratorium that has been
in effect for the last 5 years says you cannot access the Internet and
add a tax to somebody who has a monthly internet bill. It says if two
States or more want to tax in that transaction, you cannot do that.
Multiple taxes are something you cannot do. The same legislation has
said if there is a discriminatory tax somebody wants to impose on
Internet transactions, you cannot do it. For example, Delaware has no
sales tax. To say for a person who goes to the local book store and
buys a book in Delaware that you don't have a sales tax, but if you buy
that same book over the Internet, you have a tax imposed, that is a
discriminatory tax. The law in effect for 5 years said you cannot do
that.
What Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, Senator Graham, Senator
Enzi, and a number of others are seeking to do is to simply say the law
in effect for the last 5 years, which prohibits those kinds of
activities, stays in effect. Because the world is changing in the way
people access the Internet, through broadband and DSL, which a couple
of months ago I could not even spell, today turned out to be a key
component of this debate. But how do we change the old 5-year
moratorium in a way that is fair, for instance, to the baby bells, to
their business interests? What can we do that is fair and will enable
them to be competitive, level the competitive playing field for them.
They have suggested that whether you are getting your Internet service
from a cable provider or a telephone company, State and local
governments should not be allowed to tax that access to the Internet,
at least for the end user.
Here is where our divide is with our friends, Senator Allen of
Virginia and Senator Wyden from Oregon. The question is: Where do we
prohibit the imposition of the tax? At what point? Starting with the
consumer in his or her home, the business in its operation, all the way
back up to the ISP, through the infrastructure to the backbone--where
does access to the Internet begin? We argue in our definition in our
proposal the access begins between the provider, ISP, and the consumer,
whether a business or an individual.
Other colleagues, who have a different view, have a much broader
vision of where the Internet access comes from--much more expansive,
and by their expanded definition, they expand the prohibition
dramatically on what State and local governments can tax to raise
revenues. I think there is an honest disagreement here. We believe we
should focus on what I call the last mile. There are others who believe
we should focus on the first mile, all the way through the last mile.
When we do that, we take for the States potentially a fair amount of
revenue generation capability off of the table at a time when obviously
they are hurting and they need every dime they can raise.
I don't know if we can resolve this difference. I think we had a good
honest go of it today. Senator McCain is trying very hard to broker
some kind of agreement. We may be successful or we may not. Ultimately,
we may have to just vote.
I say this to our friends who have a different view than Senator
Alexander, Senator Voinovich, the Presiding Officer, and myself: We in
Delaware have learned over the years to make our State a real
attractive place to do business. If other States want to impose fees or
taxes on services, and we are smart enough in my State to not do that
and then go to the businesses that are maybe being mistreated by
regulatory or tax policies in another State, and say, Come to Delaware;
you won't have to put up with any of that frankly, it has a good
argument.
In a variety of ways, financial services and other sections of our
economy are stronger today because we have chosen not to impose certain
taxes or fees. We have gone to sections of the economy and said: Look
what we have in our State.
I say to those who have a different view than Senator Alexander,
Senator Enzi, and myself: Don't discount the competitive nature of
States and how some of us will elect not to impose a tax on any of this
business in an effort to be far more attractive to those kinds of
businesses as we go down the road.
I thank my colleague for the good work he is doing and say to him how
much I have enjoyed working with him on this issue, clean air issues,
and others. I hope this is a harbinger of things to come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is still under a unanimous consent
agreement to yield as much time as the Senator wishes to the Senator
from Delaware.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as I was listening to Senator Carper, I
was thinking about what he just said. I believe I am right about this,
but Senator Carper can correct me: What we are saying in our amendment
is if the Senator from Delaware or I hook up a computer to the
Internet, our amendment would prohibit State and local governments from
taxing that event; isn't that right?
Mr. CARPER. I think the Senator has that right.
Mr. ALEXANDER. That would be true even if Internet access moved over
from the current way many people do it--and this is hard for people to
understand many times--over to the cable or the phone company; is that
right as well?
Mr. CARPER. Five years ago when this legislation was written on the
moratorium, I don't believe DSL existed. The idea of people accessing
the Internet over broadband was not something people thought much of.
The idea of accessing the Internet over wireless I don't think is
something we thought we had the capability of doing. The world has
changed.
Mr. ALEXANDER. So from the point of view of the Federal Government
interfering with local governments, we would be making a pretty
significant interference there because we would be affording to the
Internet access connection a protection that we didn't afford the
telephone, that we didn't afford the telegraph, that we didn't afford
the purchase of food, the purchase of medicine--anything. If you hook
up your Internet, nobody can tax you. That would be our proposal.
The other point the Senator from Delaware is making--Delaware in
particular has done this--is, say, in the District of Columbia there
was a big cable company or big phone company, and the District of
Columbia said: We may not be able to tax the connection between Senator
Alexander's computer, but we can sure tax the cable company, we can
sure tax the telephone company that provides that connection, and they
raise the taxes to a very high level for certain of these points along
the Internet architecture. I assume it is entirely possible the
Governor of Delaware may ride the train down to the District and say:
The tax may be 20 percent, but come live with us in Delaware; come to
our State; we don't have a right-to-work law; other States do; we don't
have an income tax; other States do. We may have a higher corporate tax
than other States. States have these differences all the time, and if
one State gets out of line, people leave, businesses leave, elections
are held and people are
[[Page S14253]]
thrown out of office. That is the way we have operated the government
for a long time.
This is a nation that from its beginning operated community by
community and State by State and has had a great aversion to central
direction of too many of these decisions.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I say in response, that is the way States
and competition--friendly competition--have worked over the years, and
if it worked in the last century, it is going to work out that way in
this century as well.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the
Record two editorials from Tennessee newspapers: One from the
Tennessean and one from the Chattanooga Times Free Press. They just
came today.
The last sentence in the Chattanooga Times Free Press article says:
If the federal tax ban becomes permanent, state and local
governments may have to come up with great amounts of tax
money in other burdensome and permanent ways that taxpayers
will not like.
The Tennessean says:
Sen. Lamar Alexander is not voting to raise taxes. He is
not trying to increase the cost of Internet access, nor is he
advocating a new tax on e-mail.
Instead, Alexander is trying to protect states from
excessive control by the federal government. Yet the
conservative states-rights position the senator has taken on
Internet access has been turned on its ear by some of his
critics. . . .
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Tennessean, Nov. 7, 2003]
Alexander's Principled Stand for State Control
Senator Lamar Alexander is not voting to raise taxes. He is
not trying to increase the cost of Internet access, nor is he
advocating a new tax on e-mail.
Instead, Alexander is trying to protect States from
excessive control by the federal government. Yet the
conservative, States-rights position the senator has taken on
Internet access taxes has been turned on its ear by his
critics, many of whom are Republicans.
Congress placed a moratorium on Internet access taxes in
1998. The few states, including Tennessee, that had taxed
Internet access before the moratorium were allowed to keep
their tax. The moratorium officially ended last week.
Now the House has passed legislation co-sponsored by
Representative Marsha Blackburn that would make the
moratorium permanent and would eliminate all exemptions. In
the Senate, Alexander opposes a permanent moratorium. He
points out that Congress shouldn't micromanage the financial
affairs of cities and States. And he points out that the few
States that are exempt from the moratorium would lose between
$80 million and $120 million in revenue if their exemptions
end. That loss of revenue would force the States to increase
taxes elsewhere.
Up until last week, Alexander was one of several senators
who had placed a hold on the moratorium legislation, but he
agreed to lift his hold on the bill last week in exchange for
a Senate debate on the issue this week.
No one wants to pay more taxes. No doubt, Tennesseans, who
are already paying tax on Internet access, would love to pay
less for Internet connections.
But the question in the Senate isn't whether the Internet
taxes should go up or down, or whether they should exist at
all. The question is whether the Federal government should
tell States what they can and cannot tax. Alexander says it
should not, and he is right. Tennesseans who want to
eliminate Internet access taxes should contact Governor Phil
Bredesen and members of the General Assembly.
Tennesseans elected Lamar Alexander to the Senate because
they believed he would exercise his own good judgment and act
in the best interest of Tennessee. On this bill, he is.
____
[From the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Nov. 7, 2003]
It's About Taxes--Yours
It's not the kind of issue that generates lots of public
attention or quick understanding. But when Senator Lamar
Alexander, R-Tenn., took the Senate floor this week to
discuss it, he wanted to make sure everyone understood that
the proposed Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act involves ``an
unfunded Federal mandate''--which could result in State and
local tax losses of $80 million to $120 million a year, that
local taxpayers might have to make up.
Some time ago, to promote development of the Internet and
other electronic communications, Congress banned taxes on
Internet access until November 1, 2003, with some exceptions
to expire October 1, 2006. The bill now before Congress would
make those taxing bans permanent. Since most people don't
like any kind of taxes, why shouldn't the ban be permanent?
Senator Alexander explained: ``We are not talking about the
issue of whether to authorize States to require out-of-State
companies, such as L.L. Bean, that sell by catalog or
Internet, to collect the same Tennessee sales tax'' that
local stores must collect. . . . ``That is an entirely
different piece of legislation.'' (We believe such
legislation should be passed to provide more State revenue
and thus avoid the necessity of imposing other taxes on
Tennesseans.) Senator Alexander continued: ``What we're
talking about is whether Tennessee and other States can
collect a sales tax from an Internet service provider when it
connects my computer to the Internet, just as it collects a
sales tax from the telephone company when it connects my
telephone or from the cable TV company when it connects my
cable.''
He said some senator seemed surprised when he suggested the
proposed permanent ban on State and local taxation is ``an
unfunded Federal mandate.'' But, Senator Alexander insisted,
it ``is an unfunded mandate, plainly in violation of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 . . .''
Senator Alexander said the Tennessee Department of Revenue
estimates that making the tax ban permanent would cost
Tennessee many millions of dollars a year. With Tennessee
finances already pinched, how would that amount be made up
without new State taxes?
So, said Senator Alexander, ``I am filing tonight an
amendment I call the Unfunded Federal Mandate Reimbursement
Act. If a majority of the Senate should decide that banning
State and local taxation of the Internet is important enough
to create an unfunded Federal mandate--that is, claim the
credit up here (in Washington), but make it be done down
there (in Tennessee and other States)--then my amendment
would provide a way for Congress to pay the bill for that by
authorizing our Department of the Treasury to reimburse
Tennessee and Minnesota and other State and local governments
each year for the cost of this new mandate.''
Don't expect Congress to rush to embrace Senator
Alexander's amendment. But he has made a point that deserves
serious consideration.
If the Federal tax ban becomes permanent, State and local
governments may have to come up with great amounts of tax
money in other burdensome and permanent ways that taxpayers
will not like.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe the more Senator Carper,
Senator Voinovich, Senator Enzi, Senator Graham, and I talk about this
issue, the more people are coming our way. I look forward to continuing
to work with other Senators who have different views, and I hope we can
come up with a good conclusion to this that respects both principles:
banning taxation of Internet access and not imposing large unfunded
Federal mandates on State and local governments.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment
to be offered by my friends and fellow former Governors, Senators
Graham, Alexander, Carper, and Voinovich.
The amendment is a very simple one. Every Senator who is aware of the
fiscal crisis faced by States across the Nation, which I think at this
point is virtually all States, ought to support this amendment, in my
judgment.
The amendment simply says we ought to continue the current moratorium
on Internet taxes for another 2 years, giving the industry additional
time to reach out to new customers and ensuring that we do not undercut
States' long-term ability to balance their budgets, because there is an
enormous relationship between Internet taxes and State budgets. In
fact, this amendment improves on the previous moratorium by ensuring
that consumers' access to the Internet is tax-free. Regardless of the
technology they prefer, be that DSL, cable modem, wireless phone,
traditional dial-up access, they would all be treated the same under
this amendment.
I know many of my colleagues are interested in providing a permanent
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access, but I ask them to take a
moment to consider the potential harm of the bill we are debating
today.
Governors, State legislators, and mayors from across this country
have called my office, and I would think the offices of most Senators,
to implore us not to pass the legislation. I understand the moratorium
envisioned in this other amendment applies only to taxes imposed on
access to the Internet. However, our good intentions are
[[Page S14254]]
not enough to ensure that this legislation is properly applied and that
the States are able to collect taxes on other telecommunications
services.
Technology, as you well know, is still developing. In the near
future, the providers of Internet services may offer telecommunications
services as part of a premium package of technology products. Digital
content presents additional challenges. I believe somebody purchasing a
new movie should be taxed on that, whether they download the movie from
the Internet provider or they purchase it from Amazon.com or they walk
over to Blockbuster and buy it off the shelf. As technology develops
and more and more options are available to consumers, Congress will
obviously need to revisit this issue of what exactly falls within this
moratorium since the technology changes so often.
This amendment would protect States' rights to impose fair and
equitable taxes on products other than Internet access. As a former
Governor, I remember very well the difficulty of financing critical
State services. I was Governor some 20 years ago, but we were having
those troubles then. They are much worse now.
I worked hard with the State legislature to achieve the right balance
of taxes and spending. That was hard. I needed the maximum flexibility.
It has been some time now, as I indicated, since I was Governor, but
over the last few years we have witnessed again how States often
struggle to balance their budgets and how, in fact, virtually every
single State is going through that process.
It seems somewhat arrogant and unfair for us as Federal legislators
to permanently limit the options available to States. I feel very
strongly about that. I in no way want to disadvantage development of
the Internet, but I want to respect the rights of other elected
officials in West Virginia and in other States, and I believe in that
strongly.
I believe a 2-year extension of the moratorium is the best of all
solutions. It protects Internet access from State and local taxes for a
while longer, as more Americans get access to the benefits of the
Internet. It preserves for the future the flexibility that State and
local governments need as they try to balance their budgets while
providing for good education, improved infrastructure, adequate police
and firefighting forces--all these things in this new age of terrorism.
And it gives Congress the responsibility and the opportunity to revisit
the issue, which is absolutely key, in 2 years, as the technology
evolves.
Let me be clear. I strongly supported the previous moratorium on
Internet access taxes because I recognized the value of expanding
Internet use to more Americans. I believe Congress ought to do what it
can to ensure the Internet becomes like the radio and the telephone and
the television before it--technology that connects with all Americans
and connects all Americans to each other.
In my home State of West Virginia, we are still working hard to
ensure that all our citizens will have access to the latest broadband
technology, so I am eager to support efforts that can make the Internet
more affordable and more available, including extending the current
moratorium for 2 years. However, I cannot ignore my concerns with the
permanent moratorium we are asked to consider today.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment which a
number of other former Governors and I have put forward.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________