George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I state for the record that I concur with the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, that my intent as the author of the underlying bill, S. 150, is to prevent taxation of Internet access. Any modifications to the definition of Internet access taxes are not intended to include payments for franchising fees as described in section 1104(8)(B), including Texas' access line fees. I believe it is accurate to say the exemption for any franchise fee or similar fee in the definition of tax in section 1104(8)(B) of title 47 of the United States Code includes the tax line fees as established in Texas in 1999. I thank the Senator from Texas for her strong advocacy for the people of Texas, making sure that this is brought up. I can assure the Senator from Texas that the Senator from Oregon and I, as this goes into conference, will work to make sure that express intent is effectuated when this measure comes back and is signed into law.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, it is an interesting discussion we are having. Actually, I think it is very important for folks to understand the context of this and how important it is in our efforts--Senator McCain's Senator Wyden's, mine, and others. This debate is about protecting consumers from taxes, taxes that would be burdensome and harmful. It is keeping, not taking necessarily, revenues away from any State or local government, but making sure we don't have them putting on additional taxes and costs, thereby making access to the Internet, and more particularly broadband, in rural areas and small towns less affordable. Everyone understands that if you tax something or something has a higher cost, fewer people can afford it. We are talking about bridging economic digital divides. We are talking about what Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Denmark, Sweden are doing, and how the U.S. is falling behind. One of the reasons the Internet has grown in this country is because the national policy for the last 6 years has been, don't tax it. It is simple. A fourth grader will understand the basic economics that more people will be able to afford something if it doesn't cost as much. So the first rule of a national policy in making broadband available to all people everywhere in this country is don't tax it. That is simple and that is the basic effort of the leadership on this issue. You can talk about incentives, and the Senator from North Dakota talked about incentives. I have been in favor of many of these incentives, and I think the Senator from Oregon has, the chairman of the Commerce Committee as well. But the point is, it seems so counterproductive. We are going to give incentives to companies to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to get broadband high-speed Internet access to southwest Virginia or eastern Oregon or northern Arizona, but we are going to have to give even greater incentives because we are going to have to offset the taxes that are going to be imposed on those ultimate consumers. It is illogical and counterproductive to have taxes imposed on Internet access. For folks who are watching at home, you may think you send e-mails across this country and those messages are traveling over the Internet. Guess what. You are right; they are. Here is the problem with our opponents' proposal. By the way, I wish the folks who are on the side of taxing the Internet were in the Chamber. Let's vote on the amendments. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, had an amendment yesterday. We debated it, and we voted on it. We had a cloture vote, and 11 people did not want to go to this bill. I wish they were in this Chamber debating and advocating their ideas and let the Senators vote on them rather than delaying, dawdling, and freezing up this bill. Our opponents say e-mails are not Internet services, they are telephone services because what they want to do is apply telephone taxes to your Internet communications. The protax view is, if you happen to choose DSL for your Internet service, and you are unlucky enough to fall into one of these taxing grandfathered States, then the entire network from your computer to your friend's e-mail inbox on the other side of the country is taxable. Telephone tax rates can run very high. Here are some examples. This is not a proud moment for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Richmond, VA, 29, almost 30-percent taxes on a telephone bill in Virginia. Texas has high taxes, too, 28.5 percent. This is the top 10. Georgia is 19 percent. I am sure the Presiding Officer is glad to see South Carolina is not in the top 10. South Carolina actually ought to be applauded. South Carolina was one of the grandfathered States, allowing them to tax Internet access, but they said, no, it is harmful to South Carolina's ability to attract business, and they removed that tax, as did Iowa, the District of Columbia, and Connecticut. Regardless, this is the amount of taxes that are put on telephone services. The opponents will say they are worried about telecommunications migrating. They worry about telecommunications, telephone calls, migrating to the Internet with voice over IP. Senator McCain's amendment makes sure that issue is not disposed of in this bill. The reality is, what they are advocating is having telephone taxes migrate onto your Internet access bill. The Senator from North Dakota mentioned bills and how we try to figure out these bills. What Senator Wyden and Senator McCain and I would like to see done if we had a moratorium is have your Internet access bill be the way it is now. Whatever that amount is, it is simple. This chart shows your monthly bill of $23.90. If it is broadband, the amount is probably going to be in the thirties or forties. Of course, we like to make sure there is competition whether it is wireless, DSL, satellite, and a variety of other areas. The Carper-Alexander approach would want that to be taxed. Guess what it would look like. The Senator from North Dakota talked about how can we figure out these telephone bills, as there are multiple local taxes, State taxes, Federal taxes. This chart shows a Verizon bill. Here we have gross receipts surcharge, relay center surcharge, such and such--all sorts of different taxes, Federal and State. From the simplicity of your bill with no added taxes, taxes on average 17 percent, they want to get into this situation. I say to my friends and anybody watching, there was a similar debate, I suppose, 105 years ago, in this Senate. They needed this money because we were in the midst of the Spanish-American War. They said: We need to put a luxury tax on this newfangled idea called the telephone. So a luxury tax was put on telephone service. Guess what. Whether you are in Virginia, North Dakota, Oregon, Hawaii, or anywhere in between in this country, Americans, well over 100 years after that Spanish-American War, are still paying that Spanish-American War luxury tax on telephone service. The reason I say that is it gives us an idea of how many different taxes there are, but also a history lesson of how hard it is and nearly impossible to ever remove a tax once a tax is imposed. That is why it is so important that we act on this moratorium and prevent new States, additional States, localities, counties, and tax districts from coming up with new taxes because if you ever try to take them off, you will hear all sorts of bleating and whining: Oh, gosh, you can't take it off. Again, the prime example is this Spanish- American War tax that still is on our telephone bills. This is what Senator McCain, Senator Wyden, and those of us who are on the side of the consumers and against taxing the Internet are advocating. If you happen to choose a dial-up service, whether it is cable modem, or however you get your Internet access, our opponents will say you should be protected from taxation from, they say, ``the last mile'' leading up to your house. But then say the Internet backbone still should be taxable. Let's examine what this means. Let's assume you live on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. I know for some watching on TV that would not be an appealing thought. Nonetheless, let's assume you do. Let's assume you wanted to send an e-mail to a friend in Los Angeles, CA. Because of the way the Internet operates, that e-mail message will be broken into various packets of data sent via various routes all across this country. Let's say one piece of your e-mail goes from Washington, DC. It will probably go into Loudoun County, VA, because there is a good server there. It is going to go to Chicago, because in Chicago they have a big Internet hub, then to Austin, TX, then to northern California because they also have a huge hub there, and then on down to southern California. You begin to get a sense of all the jurisdictions this e-mail passes through and the chaos that will result if they, the tax proponents, claim to have authority over your e-mail. Obviously, DC and Virginia would have an opportunity to tax it, or maybe Loudoun County would tax it, going through parts of Ohio and Indiana, through Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and probably, if you are assuming all these are direct lines, it may, for all you know, go on up to Idaho and Oregon. Regardless, all of those would claim jurisdiction and authority over that e-mail. This is a classic example of interstate commerce. Our Founders had a concern about multiple burdens imposed by multiple governments and that is why our Founders put the Commerce clause in the Constitution giving Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, the authority and responsibility to make sure interstate commerce and the interests of all of the people are defended against potentially harmful burdens imposed by State and local governments to taxation. Now, according to our opponents, the folks who are advocating taxing the backbone, which of the jurisdictions would be free from taxation on this Internet backbone? None. None would be prohibited. All would be free to tax interstate communications. Every single State, every single city, county, town, and municipality on this red line would have authority to tax; not just DC, not just Illinois, not just Texas, not just California, but all of them. Remember, our opponents have promised everyone tax freedom for the so-called last mile, which is the last mile right here, which means people may enjoy no taxation on the last mile so they will have tax freedom there, but they have 3,000 miles of taxes if the Alexander- Carper proposal is successful. I do not know if that sounds like an Internet tax moratorium to my colleagues. It certainly does not to me, because State and local governments, while they cannot tax the very beginning or the very end of an electronic connection, can tax everywhere in between. They can tax from the end of the beginning to the middle to the end of the end before you get to the final end. The point is, they can tax every other part of this 3,000-mile electronic journey. The Alexander-Carper alternative would allow for taxes on the Internet backbone services in all 50 States and in every local taxing jurisdiction, plus taxes directly will be on the consumer in more than 20 States. The Alexander-Carper amendment would create a nightmare scenario our Founders sought to avoid when they wrote the Commerce clause of our Constitution where every town and State would tax commercial traffic moving through its borders. We have 7,600 taxing jurisdictions in the United States. Not a single one of those 7,600 taxing jurisdictions would be prohibited from taxing the Internet backbone under the Alexander-Carper proposal. In fact, the bill makes clear America's 7,600 taxing authorities can tax e-mail in every jurisdiction in America as long as they present the bill to the Internet service provider instead of directly to the customer. In the 20 to 30 States, depending on interpretations of the new grandfather clauses, they can tax the consumer directly. Figure what is going to happen. If there is a 17-percent tax on this, who knows, Ohio might have the 17-percent tax, Illinois would have a 12-percent tax, Texas would have 25 percent, New Mexico 12, Arizona, under the great influence of the senior Senator from Arizona, would have 1 percent, Nevada being a very free State in many respects, and libertarian, would have zero. Then we get to California and San Francisco which would have a high tax, say 28 percent, and then as it gets to Los Angeles, it is back to 17-percent tax. The point is, every single one of these would be able to tax it. So the opponents will say we ought to be able to tax this, but if one takes an airplane from Dulles Airport to Long Beach, say they flew Jet Blue from Dulles Airport to Long Beach, the Federal Government says a person is not going to be taxed as they fly over the country, but that electronic message will be taxed if the Alexander-Carper amendment passes. Indeed, if we want to use that analogy going from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia to Long Beach, CA, the Federal Government recognized that is interstate commerce. Decades ago, the Federal Government said you cannot tax not only when you fly over a State but you cannot tax as you are leaving and you cannot tax those passengers at their destination when they arrive, either. I ask my colleagues to say no to 3,000 miles of taxes, and say yes to a true and accurate Internet tax moratorium.

Mr. ALLEN. I ask my colleagues to act. I ask those who have amendments to go forward with their amendments, let us debate them, let us decide today so we are not delayed, frozen up as it happens from time to time in the Senate with not enough time tomorrow night because folks are scattering to go to various events and political functions. Yes, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his question. We are not talking about a loaf of bread, and if we were talking about a loaf of bread we would have a lot of people saying, gee, we rely on all the taxes. If one looks at the cost of a loaf of bread--and I know the wheat farmers in North Dakota say, Here is the price I get for wheat and think of what the cost of it is, it is 3 cents out of the loaf of bread, and by the time everyone else does different things in packaging and transport, there are all sorts of taxes on it, and it ends up being who knows what, $1.50 for a loaf of bread, or maybe 79 cents if one is lucky and it is a few weeks old. Regardless, all of those component parts increase the cost of the loaf of bread to someone who wants to put peanut butter and jam on a sandwich for their young son or daughter going to school. So that economic argument applies to why we do not want to have a lot of taxes in between. The simple answer is we do not want the bandwidth being taxed. Internet service providers have desks. Internet service providers have a physical facility that is subject to property taxes and they have personal property taxes on some of the accessories in that building. They have to pay the corporate taxes as that corporation. If they are an Internet service provider, if they have an income, they have to pay a tax in that particular State. The point is, though, that for the bandwidth, the actual transport, that should not be taxed. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I also recognize that while we do not necessarily agree on this issue at this moment, I do appreciate that at least when we wanted to proceed to this measure you voted to proceed, unlike the 11 who wanted to continue to freeze it.

Mr. ALLEN. Right. There were a great deal of concerns, I think the Senator from North Dakota might recollect, in the Commerce Committee about what was exempt or what was prohibited from taxation or what did the moratorium prohibit taxation upon. There were many concerns. They were generally handled, in my view, adequately by the managers' amendment that Senator McCain had, that came out of the Finance Committee. That made sure what was to be taxable and what was not taxable because there were concerns that somehow personal property taxes, real estate taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, and so forth, would be prohibited on companies that are involved in providing Internet service. Our concern is making sure that whomever your Internet service provider is in Washington, DC, when you get to, say, Los Angeles and there is a slew of other Internet service providers there with a lot of competition, in between they don't own all of this. Somebody has to get this routed electronically. So that routing of that electronic e-mail, so to speak, or those bits, should not be taxed. It is looking at this message as being a car, an automobile. You could drive across this whole country on an interstate that is a freeway. The Alexander-Carper amendment would turn that into a toll road. So you wouldn't go this way unless you were lost or taking some scenic route. But if you were driving from Virginia to Tennessee, you would take Interstate 40 probably, across 81, but you can probably drive that whole route, as I have and others have, and not pay a toll. But if you have the Alexander-Carper amendment, that turns this whole thing into something akin to the New Jersey Turnpike, a toll road. Obviously, once you get there it is going to cost you a whole lot more to get that packet, that automobile, from Washington, DC, to Los Angeles. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his interest, his probing questions that allowed me to clarify what we are trying to do. I conclude by saying to the opponents, come forward; let's get moving; let's get acting. I think it is vitally important to protect consumers from these taxes. I think it is vitally important to those who are looking to invest in rural areas that they know what the policies of this country are, to recognize in what kind of market they might be in small towns and rural areas, and let's get about expanding economic opportunity, jobs, and prosperity for all Americans everywhere in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today on the 198th anniversary of his birth, to recognize James Monroe, a Virginia patriot, and honor his service to our Nation as a soldier, a diplomat, a legislator and as the fifth President of the United States of America. James Monroe, born April 28, 1758 in Westmoreland County, was born, raised, and educated in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Foregoing his studies at the College of William and Mary, James Monroe joined the Williamsburg Militia in 1775 in defiance of the British King. He served gallantly in the Continental Army on the battlefield at Harlem Heights, White Plains, Trenton, Brandywine, Germantown and Monmouth, eventually rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. A student of Thomas Jefferson's after serving in the Revolutionary War, James Monroe was an adherent of Mr. Jefferson's principles of individual freedom and restrained representative government, which would guide him through fifty years of public service. Elected to the Virginia General Assembly in 1782, Monroe served in the Confederate Congress and in the first United States Senate before his first of two terms as Minister to France. He returned to his Virginia, and as many students of Mr. Jefferson have done since, served four years as Governor. During Thomas Jefferson's Presidency, James Monroe returned to France and was essential in the negotiation of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. His foreign policy experience led James Madison to name him both Secretary of State and Secretary of War as the United States was once again pulled into war with Great Britain in 1812. Elected President of the United States in 1816, Monroe's Presidency has long been referred to as the Era of Good Feeling, during which time he helped resolve long-standing grievances with the British, acquired Florida from the Spanish in 1819, signed the Missouri Compromise and renounced European intervention or dominion in the Western Hemisphere with one of our Nation's greatest foreign policy documents, the Monroe Doctrine. In 1820, Monroe achieved an impressive re-election, losing only one electoral vote, reserving a unanimous election for George Washington. My own family has many strong ties to the legacy of James Monroe. My wife Susan and I enjoyed our wedding on the grounds of his home Ashlawn-Highland in Charlottesville where her family has worked for many years. In fact, part of Monroe's property in Albemarle County, is now on the grounds of his teacher's great institution of learning, the University of Virginia and is respectfully referred to as Monroe's Hill. The life of James Monroe is one that embodied Virtue, Honor and Commitment during his accomplished life of public service. It is fitting that he would pass from this Earth on July Fourth, 1831. It is with sincere admiration that I respectfully ask my colleagues to recognize James Monroe's one hundred and ninety-eighth birthday as a reminder of his remarkable and magnificent leadership for the people of Virginia and the United States of America.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 at 3 p.m. to hold a Nomination hearing.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled ``Government Purchase Cards: Smarter Use Can Save Taxpayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars.''

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, at 10 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 2172, Tribal Contract Support Cost Technical Amendments of 2004.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services be authorized to meet for a hearing on Mental Health in Children and Youth: Issues Throughout the Development Process during the session of the Senate on Wednesday April 28, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 28, 2004, at 11 a.m., in closed session, to receive a briefing regarding the performance of force protection equipment for ground forces in Iraq, including the up-armored HMMWV, and potential alternatives to meet force protection needs of the combatant commander.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on Telecommunications Policy Review: A Look Ahead, in SR-253.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, April 28 at 11:30 a.m. to consider pending calendar business. Agenda Item 1: S. 203--A bill to open certain withdrawn land in Big Horn County, WY to locatable mineral development for bentonite mining. Agenda Item 5: S. 1071--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study on a water conservation project within the Arch Hurley Conservancy District in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 6: S. 1097--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program. Agenda Item 9: S. 1467--A bill to establish the Rio Grande Outstanding Natural Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 10: S. 1582--A bill to amend the Valles Preservation Act to improve the preservation of the Valles Caldera, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 11: S. 1649--A bill to designate the Ojito Wilderness Study Area as wilderness, to take certain land into trust for the Pueblo of Zia, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 12: S. 1687--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the preservation and interpretation of the historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential inclusion in the National Park System. Agenda Item 13: S. 1778--A bill to authorize a land conveyance between the United States and the City of Craig, AK, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 14: S. 1791--A bill to amend the Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 to provide that the amounts received by the United States under that Act shall be deposited in the reclamation fund, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 15: S. 2180--A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange certain lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado. Agenda Item 16: S. Res. 321--A resolution recognizing the loyal service and outstanding contributions of J. Robert Oppenheimer to the United States and calling on the Secretary of Energy to observe the 100th anniversary of Dr. Oppenheimer's birth with appropriate programs at the Department of Energy and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Agenda Item 20: H.R. 1521--To provide for additional lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood National Memorial in the State of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 21: H.R. 3249--To extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments Committee. In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 28th at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration. The hearing will be held in SD 406, hearing room.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Taking the Taxpayers for a Ride: Fraud and Abuse in the Power Wheelchair Program.''

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 at 10 a.m. to hold a Nomination hearing.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 at 2 p.m. on ``The Playwrights Licensing Antitrust Initiative Act: Safeguarding the Future of American Live Theater'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226 Witness List Arthur Miller, Playwright (Death of a Salesman, The Crucible, All My Sons); Roxbury, CT. Stephen Sondheim, Lyricist (West Side Story, Gypsy, Sweeney Tood); New York, NY. Wendy Wasserstein, Playwright (Uncommon Women and Others, Isn't It Romantic, The Heidi Chronicles); New York, NY. Gerald Schoenfeld, Chairman, League of American Theaters and Producers; Chairman, The Shubert Organization; New York, NY. Roger Berlind, Producer, Berlind Productions (Kiss Me Kate, City of Angels, Wonderful Town, Caroline or Change); New York, NY.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled, ``Impact of Stock Option Expensing on Small Businesses'' on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Wednesday, April 28, 2004, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 28, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, be authorized to meet for a hearing on Healthy Marriage: What is it and why should we promote it? During the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, at 2 p.m.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I ask the Senator from New Mexico to yield for the purpose of a question.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate and the reading of titles of amendments. We have seen detours, political posturing, partisanship, criticizing of the Vice President, and all sorts of cover for past obstructionism. Obviously, things such as the geothermal are important. Clean-coal technology is important. Biomass, solar photovoltaic, energy policy, exploration of the North Slope of Alaska, natural gas pipelines for greater quantities of natural gas--all of that is very important. Then you listen to people talk about endangered species. A Senator was talking about endangered species. I am thinking: You know what is endangered in this country--particularly out in rural areas--is jobs for people in rural America. The main point of this debate and where we are supposed to be today is those who want to have the Internet free from taxation and others who have other ideas. The Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchinson, had an amendment. We voted on it, and we are supposed to be considering other amendments on Internet tax. Now we are off on a tangent of ethanol. First it was ethanol, and now it is the larger Energy bill. I was thinking the key people who like the ethanol provision are people who grow corn in America. There is an association, the American Corn Growers Association. To get everyone to focus a second on the main issue, which is whether the Internet ought to be taxed at the State and local level, I will share with my colleagues what the American Corn Growers Association actually thinks of S. 150, the bill to make sure there is not taxation on the Internet. They said they support S. 150. They want to make the existing Federal moratorium against State and local taxes on Internet access, as well as multiple and discriminatory taxes targeting interstate commerce, permanent and national in scope. They feel the bill would ensure technological neutrality so all Internet users, including their members--being the corn growers--are protected by the Federal moratorium no matter what technology they use to access the Internet. The Corn Growers Association feels the new technologies are particularly key to ensuring Internet access to rural America. They are exactly right, whether that is through DSL lines, through wireless, satellites, or electric power lines, there are a variety of ways rural America needs to get access to broadband. The American Corn Growers Association, which represents people and interests of corn producers in 35 States, works very hard to enhance farm income. They care about protecting rural communities. They say they recognize the need to have a strong and stable farm economy, not just for the farmers, but for consumers, as well. They feel the Internet Tax Freedom Act and S. 150 is intended to exempt access to the Internet from taxation, including, they recognize, transmission. The Corn Growers feel to exempt from taxation the transmission is an integral part of accessing the Internet. They feel failure to amend the existing law would make consumers susceptible to substantial taxation of their Internet access. They also say even the definition of Internet access is outdated and does not cover all forms of technology used to access the Internet that exists today. The wording of the original statute is exclusive of consideration of the multiple technological advancements and changes that have developed in business since 1998. This is inadequate, says the Corn Growers Association, and will almost certainly result in new taxes imposed on Internet users. They feel keeping the current language in place will perpetuate a competitive disadvantage among providers by exempting some of the types of high-speed Internet access while other types would be taxable. We have the American Corn Growers Association, which undoubtedly would be for ethanol provisions proposed on the floor, but clearly the American Corn Growers Association, as well as dozens of organizations, whether technologically involved or not, care a great deal about whether broadband is going to be taxed. All these parliamentary procedures and all these delays and tangents and detours take us away from the point at hand and the decision that needs to be made by the Senate. It ought to be done as quickly as possible. The question before us is whether American consumers are going to be hit on average with 17-percent telecommunication taxes on their monthly Internet service bill. The question is whether Internet service bills will look like a telephone bill, with multiple taxes from the localities, from the States, and even the Federal Government. My friends, it is absolutely essential, I say to my colleagues, that we act on the Internet access tax issue. As more and more taxes get imposed, it is nearly impossible to ever get those taxes off. Look at your telephone bill. There is a slew of taxes; some that are incomprehensible. There is one tax placed on there in 1898 as a luxury tax. It was a luxury tax in 1898 to finance the Spanish-American War. Guess what? We are still paying that tax. That war has been over for over 100 years. That is why it is important we act and not delay, not dawdle, not get off on tangents. If we do get off the point, we need to get back on the subject, the point of voting and taking a stand on whether Members stand on the side of freedom and opportunity for people by not having Internet access hit with 17-percent taxes or more, or whether we will stand on the side of freedom, where the broadband can get rolled out-- not just to city areas and suburban areas, but out to the country, to rural areas so people can have access if they have their own business, access to sell goods or services all over the world, or all over the country, as the case may be. If we continue to delay on this issue, we will see what has happened in the last 2 years. What has happened in the last 2 years, a little over 2 years, is unelected bureaucrats come up with revenue rulings or taxation rulings that have found a loophole in the original moratorium and have started imposing taxes, about $40 million worth of taxes across the country. That is not a great deal in money, but nevertheless taxing DSL is a great concern to many. When they tax Internet access, that means fewer people can afford it. The reason most people do not have Internet access is they cannot afford it. We are concerned about an economic digital divide. If you want to close the divide and make sure people all over this country have greater ability to have access to the Internet, and the benefits therefrom--whether education, access to information, commerce, telemedicine, a variety of other applications, particularly with broadband--then we must not tax Internet access. Adding taxes will not help. I hope we will make a decision this week. Let the American people know where we stand. More importantly, let those companies that will have to make investments in the range of tens of millions of dollars to serve various areas know what the policy of this country will be. In the past, the question has been one of freedom--making sure the Internet was free from taxation. We see great growth, great opportunity. That should be the approach for the future, from my point of view. A decision needs to be made so the folks planning expansion of the Internet--those companies, those entrepreneurs--know what the playing field will be in the future. It is my view, looking at the votes, whether on the motion to proceed or the most recent amendment from the senior Senator from Texas, the vast majority of the Senators realize the Internet ought to remain free from burdensome, onerous taxation. A majority of the Senators recognize we need to update the definition of Internet access to make sure the DSL, wireless and other methods of accessing the Internet, are not subject to these burdensome taxes. From these votes, at least in the early indications, it appears that a majority of Senators recognizes that we ought to be closing the economic digital divide. A strong majority of Senators recognizes there are innovations, there are new ideas, and we want to make sure this country will be in the lead for adaptations, the benefits, prosperity, and opportunity that will flow from new advancements in technology. We certainly do not want to be increasing the costs to anybody in this country for logging on to the Internet everyday. In my view, if the Senate does not act, if the Senate does not invoke cloture and pass an updated Federal moratorium on Internet access taxation, what we will see are State and local tax commissars imposing telecommunication-based taxes that average about 17 percent on the Internet. This moratorium that we are trying to get action on here on the Senate floor is designed to protect consumers and avert the adverse impact of taxation on real people in our real world and in our economy. So while there are all these machinations and maneuverings and parliamentary procedures and political posturing and tangents and detours, I would ask my colleagues, in the midst of this, if we are going to have votes on all these other ideas, some of which have a great deal of merit--and maybe, for those of us who do not want to tax the Internet, we should feel somehow applauded or grateful that people would want to attach salutary, positive ideas; they figure this is going to pass, and this is the way to get those other ideas done--but as you get on to these other nongermane issues, let's act on them quickly, and let's also keep our eye on the ball. While folks may care about endangered species, let's remember, real people in the real world who we want to make sure have the opportunities that come from having access to broadband and Internet, whether they are a small business owner, a student, or somebody who is looking for a better job, let's make sure we pay attention to the issue at hand, the underlying measure; and that is, to make sure the Internet stays free from onerous and burdensome taxation for all people all over the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have always been one to support innovation. It is with the innovative researchers of this Nation and the world that have provided us with some of the greatest contributions in history. Inventions such as the computer, the Internet, the automobile, the airplane, and vaccines have transformed the world as we once knew it, to the world that we live in now. I would like to take a moment and recognize yesterday's event commemorating April 26, 2004, as the 50th Anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine field trials, a truly significant day for our Nation. On April 26, the March of Dimes and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, commemorated the 50th anniversary of the development of the Salk polio vaccine along with several other organizations. This day in April holds great significance for the nation as it was that day in 1954 that the first dose of the Salk vaccine was distributed to children at Franklin Sherman Elementary school in McLean, VA as part of the National Field Trial Program. In the months that followed, more than 1,800,000 school children, collectively referred to as ``Polio Pioneers'', participated in these trials. The outcomes of these field trials were truly significant. Reports indicated that the Salk vaccine was 80-90 percent effective in preventing polio and in the four years following the trials, medical personnel administered 450 million doses of the vaccine, making it a standard fixture among childhood immunizations. By the end of 2003, poliomyelitis had been eliminated world-wide in all but 6 countries. The result of this vaccination--nearly 5 million children have been given the ability to walk who would otherwise have been paralyzed and 1.25 million childhood deaths have been averted. The Salk polio vaccine is a great contribution to our nation and to the entire world. While poliovirus was eradicated from the United States by the early 1980's, it continues to exist in the wild in a limited number of regions around the world. Nevertheless, the World Health Organization has set 2005 as the target date for complete, global eradication of the virus. It is through the unwavering support and undying efforts of the innovators of this world and organizations such as the March of Dimes that make this occasion possible. The people of Virginia thank you, the people of the United States thank you, and most importantly the world thanks you.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to address this issue as it lays right now as we are moving to proceed, and some of the misinformation, mischaracterizations of where we are. This issue is not a novel or new one for the Senate. We have debated this in the committee. It has been on the floor. Senator Wyden and I were ready to roll with this back in November--a permanent moratorium making sure forever there would not be discriminatory taxes, multiple taxes, or access taxes for consumers on the Internet. Now we get to this point and there are a lot of mischaracterizations. The Senator from Arizona, chairman of the Commerce Committee, has come up with a proposal, an amendment to the bill, which is not permanent. To me it is not ideal. It is not perfect. But a lot of what happens in the Senate fails to meet that standard of ideal and perfect. Once in a while, one has to be practical, pragmatic, and sometimes cut back on what you think is the ideal. This amendment of the Senator from Arizona is a 4-year moratorium rather than a permanent moratorium. I look at a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from some of my colleagues, Senator Carper and Senator Alexander, and they say: A moratorium of 4 years, that is tantamount to a permanent moratorium while they argue for a 2-year extension of a moratorium. Well, if 4 years is permanent, I guess whoever gets elected President next year is going to be there permanently; Senators with a 6-year term, that must be ad infinitum. Four years is temporary; it is not ideal. I would prefer it to be permanent, and the reason I would like it to be permanent is because companies have to invest millions, tens of millions of dollars, if they are going to get broadband out, especially small towns and rural areas. In the event there is a shorter duration, then that means it is less likely that there will be stability, predictability, and confidence that the laws will stay the same. Anyone, even those with a fourth grade education--at least those students who have the benefit of Virginia's standards of learning--will understand that if you tax something, fewer people will be able to afford it. The question before the Senate is whether we want to have Internet access and the Internet service monthly bills to be burdened with, on average, about a 17-percent tax, as is the case on telephone bills. Senator Wyden, myself, and many others believe that if we want more people to have access to broadband and the Internet, then the best way is not to burden it with regulations or taxes. This is particularly true for those with lower incomes and those in rural areas and small towns, who need access to the ability to conduct commerce, access to education, access to telemedicine--access to all forms of information, which is key to competitiveness these days. The grandfather clause has also been changed from the bill Senator Wyden and I originally introduced. We wanted to stop those who found a loophole in the original moratorium and started taxing the backbone of the Internet. They are taxing that and, of course, ultimately the consumer has to pay for those taxes. We wanted to stop that immediately. Senator McCain's amendment gives those States greater leeway and gives them up to 2 years to wean themselves off of this latest loophole for taxation. For those who have been taxing prior to 1998--and many States are still taxing--although States such as Iowa, South Carolina, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, which were grandfathered, have stopped taxing Internet access. But other States are continuing to do so. Senator McCain's amendment--unlike what the House did, which was stopping these States from taxing instantly--gives them 3 years to wean themselves off of it. The compromise that Senator McCain put forward, to me, is not ideal; it is beneficial, though, in that at least for the next 4 years we are protecting consumers from being hit with these burdensome, counterproductive, undesirable taxes on their access to the Internet. While not perfect, it is a measure that we can move forward with. It will have the Senate on record as not being in favor of taxing access to the Internet, but rather on the side of the consumers, on the side of freedom, and on the side of opportunity. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?