Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is right. I think it is fair to say that the certification process today for the workers is almost a kind of bureaucratic water torture. It involves essentially a different process with different countries. What we tried to do in our bipartisan discussions is to try to streamline the process, make it worker friendly. I think this is really going to expedite the processing, expedite the certification. Obviously when these families are hurting--and we are talking about people who have been laid off after years and years of employment--they are on this economic tightrope trying to figure out how to balance and pay for essentials. The last thing they need to do is jump through hoop after bureaucratic hoop to get these benefits. The Senator from Minnesota is right, that is a significant improvement as well. Nobody knows more about this subject than the Senator from Montana because he and his staff have worked on this issue at length. Streamlining is very helpful.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is right. In addition to the bipartisan support in the Senate, there has been very significant bipartisan support in the business community. There are an awful lot of business leaders who have been looking for these kinds of ideas that the Senator from Minnesota has really touched on. This is a question of updating our law. I don't think anybody got up in the morning years ago and said: Let's be rotten to service workers. That was not what happened at all. I think people just did not really see what a critical role service and high technology were going to play in the economy. The business organizations that the Senator from Minnesota has mentioned do. They get it. They understand it is absolutely critical to not leave something like four-fifths of the workers behind. I join with the Senator from Minnesota and commend him and thank him for his support.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator from Montana is absolutely right. A lot of Senators have been at this issue for many of years. Senator Bingaman's contribution with respect to community services in the health care area is very important. I heard my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, talk about the health care needs of folks laid off in the high-tech and service areas. He has been supportive as well. The Senator from Montana is absolutely right. There have been a lot of Senators who have been at it with respect to this issue. It is a bipartisan proposal, but right at the heart of that is dealing with the health care issue. Health care, as we all know, has been the toughest issue for the Senate to deal with for some time. This is an area where there has been a real breakthrough with respect to health care. It had to be bipartisan--the Senator from Montana is right--or a lot of Senators would not be involved.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I see my colleagues still in the Chamber. I thank the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Minnesota, especially as the Senator from Montana touched on the issue of health insurance costs for people who have been laid off in high-tech and the manufacturing sector. As we heard earlier, these are folks who are getting hit by a wrecking ball with respect to health care. They literally have nowhere to turn. Many of them are not old enough for Medicare, not poor enough for Medicaid. They don't fit into a lot of the categories--these boxes by which you get health care in our country. So what we did in these bipartisan negotiations--and the Senator from Minnesota was particularly helpful, but I also commend the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who is very much involved in this effort to get a bipartisan agreement with respect to a 75-percent allocation of the coverage--we were able to add critical benefits for spouses, which is something that was so important to help people where there was an interruption in coverage. So what the Senator from Montana has outlined with respect to health care issues was exactly, in my view, how the Senate ought to move to deal with a very real problem but to do it in a bipartisan way. As we began those discussions, we had some folks who wanted to go even higher than the number we set out. Some people said you cannot go there at all because of the deficit. But we made the judgment on a bipartisan basis that you could not afford not to cover these people because if, for example, as has been documented in the Finance Committee, these people cannot get coverage on an outpatient basis, what will happen again and again is they will face the need to have more extensive and much more expensive medical services. I was very glad the Senator from Montana brought up the bipartisan agreement as it related to the health care issue. The Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, were especially helpful in the efforts led by the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at one time I had the floor. I yield at this point and again hope the Senate will support the bipartisan initiative that has involved many months of work and is critically needed in the economic challenges we face today. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Montana on the floor, and the Senator from Massachusetts, both of whom have done so much for working families, as has the Senator from Maine. I bring this bipartisan amendment to the floor tonight because I think it illustrates a point Senator Lott expressed earlier when he talked about updating our laws to make sure they are fair and practical for the times. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, which this amendment speaks to, has been a great asset to folks who have been laid off in the manufacturing sector. It was written more than three decades ago. Of course, that was the key sector in our economy and still is tremendously important today, but the fact is, the trade adjustment law today doesn't apply to about four-fifths of our workers, the folks who have been laid off in the service sector and in the high-technology sector. So what we have is millions of unemployed workers in the service sector and in the high-tech sector who are walking on an economic tightrope every single day, balancing their food costs against their fuel costs, and their fuel costs against the skyrocketing medical bills, as Senator Kennedy has pointed out. What this bipartisan amendment seeks to do is establish parity between folks in the service and technology sector and those in the manufacturing sector. So people who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays them off because of import competition, people in the public and private sector who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas, and secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for trade adjustment and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm--when those people are in the high-tech and service sector of our economy, under our bipartisan amendment those people would be able to get benefits under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. In effect, this bipartisan coalition wants to persuade the Senate to support it. It is a proposition that no matter where an American works, if you lose your job because of imports, because your job moves offshore, you ought to be able to get retraining, income support, and help with your health insurance. Workers in the high-tech sector in my home State and across the country have taken a pounding in recent years. The American Electronics Association reported recently the tech sector lost 775,000 jobs in 2001 to 2003 and another 3.3 million jobs could be lost in the next decade. A Deloitte & Touche survey of telecommunication companies forecasts that well over 275,000 jobs, or 5 percent of the total workforce, will move offshore in the next 4 years and more than half of all Fortune 500 companies are outsourcing software development or expanding their own operations overseas. The fact is when you have a software developer earning $6 an hour in Bangalore, India, and 10 times that amount in Beaverton, OR, every single day this critical sector of our economy--services and high technology--faces extraordinarily tough competition. When the starting salary of a software engineer in India is $5,000 and top level IT professionals earn $20,000 there, you can be sure the competition is intense. The question is, Who is going to stand up for these American workers in the high-technology and service sector that plays such a critical role in our economy? Some argue increased trade is an overall plus to the United States because it lowers prices for consumers. There is no doubt about that. That is why I have consistently supported trade. But there are negative effects on some of our workers. Exports of high-tech products from my home State jumped 18 percent from 2001 to 2002, but in the technology industry jobs fell 11 percent. The Oregon Employment Department reports in the 2001 to 2003 period, 3,300 computer systems and design jobs were lost, 5,300 professional and technical service jobs have been lost, and 1,400 architectural and engineering service jobs were lost. Many of these have been lost due to trade. I say it is time to update--as Senator Lott has said--this critical law, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, so millions of workers in the high-tech and services sector are not left without a safety net. They have a safety net in the trade adjustment law if they are in the manufacturing sector, and that has been a great benefit to those families. But for four-fifths of our workers, those in the high-tech and service sector, that safety net has not been there. This bipartisan amendment will restore it. High-tech workers, as we know, have been the envy of the American workforce. Certainly during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, they were responsible for a tremendous amount of economic growth. The ingenuity of these programmers, engineers, and designers helped drive our economy into the 21st century. The creativity of these workers generated an exceptional wave of economic prosperity. Trade agreements on services and intellectual property helped carry the fruit of these dedicated workers around the globe. Globalization of technology is unquestionably globalizing the technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. Globalization of information technology hardware production from 1995 to 2002 cut information technology hardware costs 10 to 30 percent, translating into higher productivity growth and adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. gross domestic product. Information technology became affordable to business sectors previously bypassed by the productivity boom, small-sized and mid-sized companies, health care and construction. But as information technology hardware prices decline, the importance of information technology services and software increased, to almost 70 percent of information technology spending in 2001. One economist found offshoring reportedly saved most information technology organizations on the order of from 15 to 25 percent in the first year. With growth in software and services outpacing hardware spending by almost two to one, the demand for cheaper information technology services has lent strength to this ``offshoring tsunami'' and hammered many of our information technology workers in the process. Certainly no one could have anticipated the shocking speed or scale of globalization in information technology. The American Electronics Association 2003 Cyberstates report found unemployment among computer programmers jumped from 4.5 percent in 2001 to 6.2 percent in 2003; that high-tech employment fell by 540,000 jobs to 6 million in 2002; and that a further loss of 234,000 jobs was expected in 2003. Hardly a day goes by without a front-page story in virtually hundreds of communities across the country about an American programmer on his or her way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace them. It is a very rich irony that some of the same workers who launched the technology revolution have in fact become its victims. The average American may think the Federal Government is helping technology and service workers displaced by trade, but it is not. That is because a law written in 1962, when so many of our workers were in the manufacturing sector, has not been updated. Now we have tens of thousands who have lost jobs in the services sector and the technology sector who are not eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The bipartisan amendment I offer today will open the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act door to these and other displaced services and technology sector workers. The act is a lifeline for millions of these workers. It provides retraining, income support, a health insurance tax credit, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help secondary workers who supply parts and services who may lose their jobs when the facility or service shuts down due to import competition. This is exactly the type of help trade-displaced services workers need. A self-described ``newly unemployed software engineer'' from Hillsboro, OR wrote in December: ``My job was moved to India where the company can pay Indians a fifth of what they pay Americans.'' Another wrote: ``As a 50-year-old high-tech manufacturing engineer with 26 years of experience, I was laid off in December 2002. I am sure the new factory the company is building in China will prevent my ever returning to the company. I can't even get hired into an entry-level position anywhere because I am over-qualified.'' These unemployed Oregonians--and there are thousands of others who are employed in the information technology sector and the service sector who have lost their jobs--deserve to have this law, as our friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott said, updated so they can get benefits in the safety net the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act offers. I have heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts champion this. It is in effect a trampoline that allows individuals in our country who have been laid off through no fault of their own to get the training and the assistance and the kind of health care to in effect bounce back in our economy. It seems to me workers reeling from the offshoring of service sector jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher skilled jobs that economists keep promising them are just around the corner. Higher value, higher paid systems integration jobs may come along, but I am telling you in my home State--and I think in communities across the country--a lot of unemployed information technology professionals think they are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help-wanted ads for new, highly skilled information technology jobs. When a worker is displaced by trade, it should be irrelevant whether the person worked in services or technology or manufacturing. Every worker displaced by trade should be eligible for this very same benefit. This bipartisan amendment ensures that will be the case. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Montana, my friend Senator Baucus. He has been so helpful to me on this and so many other matters during my service in the Senate. I also thank the Senator from Minnesota who will be joining us. He has worked with the distinguished Senator from Montana and me on this bipartisan amendment. The Senator from Minnesota has joined us. But we have colleagues who come from every part of the country who have joined us. Senator Brownback has joined us, Senator Snowe has joined us, Senator Dodd has joined us, and Senator Coleman, Senator Baucus, and Senator Rockefeller. * * * very hopeful that the Senate will resoundingly support this bipartisan amendment. This is about updating a law that is now more than three decades old, a law that does not cover services and high technology, to the detriment of millions of workers. We have a bipartisan proposal that allows that. I thank my good friend from Montana.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, Senator Dayton, Senator Brownback, Senator Dodd, and Senator Snowe.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am glad to work with the Senator. I wish to consult with the chairman and also Senator Allen, but it has always been our intent--and as the prime Senate sponsor of the law back in 1998 it was always my intent--that franchise fees not be affected by the Internet tax moratorium. As the Senator has correctly noted, I say to the distinguished Senator from Texas, Texas has changed the name of its franchise fee to an access line fee. It was never our intention that franchise fees be affected by the moratorium. I am very happy to work with the Senator from Texas on it. I will have to consult with the Senator from Virginia, but he has always been very gracious working with our colleagues. The two of us will be consulting with the chairman of the committee. I want to make it clear I am very anxious to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the question from the Senator from Minnesota, who is distinguishing himself for his keen interest in technology issues. He is correct in his understanding of those matters and in his reading of the legislation. As the author of the original Internet Tax Freedom Act, it is my intent that when it comes to services that are comparable to today's circuit switched voice but which are provided over internet protocol, what some call VOIP, the legislation's moratorium would not apply. In other words, the internet access moratorium would not apply to the sale of telecommunications services that are carried or routed over the Internet that are comparable to circuit switched voice services.

Mr. WYDEN. That is good. California does not tax the backbone of the communications system now. California does, based on these analyses that have been given you, tax various telecommunications services. I think it would be fair to all of us to say it is our desire to keep the status quo in California. In other words, various services are paying telecommunications taxes now. The reading of our proposal indicates there is nothing which would prevent California from being able to continue to impose those taxes. Would it be acceptable to the Senator from California to have a colloquy which would allow us to include some report language stipulating in those areas where communications services are being taxed now that there is nothing in the McCain proposal which would change that? If that would be acceptable to the Senator from California, we might be able to work out with the chairman of the committee and the Senator from Virginia report language and withdraw her amendment. That would protect the status quo in California. It would, however, make sure we are not rewarding bad behavior in other States around the country that tax DSL. If the Feinstein amendment is offered in its current form, I will oppose it very strongly. The Feinstein amendment, if it is offered, and if we can't agree on a colloquy, would promote technological inequality. It would nail DSL and give cable a free ride. I will urge the Senate to oppose the Feinstein amendment, but I would be open to report language with my colleague from California to make sure it is the intent of the Senate to keep the status quo in California where DSL isn't taxed and the backbone isn't taxed where the Senator has been concerned.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield briefly? Because I have been following this, along with the Senator from Arizona, and we may be able to have a colloquy to work this out. California does not tax DSL now.

Mr. WYDEN. We agree.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes, that will be fine. I will not take 10 minutes. Mr. President, the Senator from California knows how much respect I have for her, but I must profoundly disagree with this amendment. This amendment would essentially reward bad behavior. What we have is a number of jurisdictions doing what clearly is in violation of the law. We do not even think they are in California, but in jurisdictions around the country people are taxing DSL. We are convinced that is clearly against the law. It certainly promotes technological inequality because we have a situation where cable gets a free ride, and then they end up taxing DSL. The Feinstein amendment would make the 2-year DSL grandfather 4 years. Some of these grandfathers in this bill are going to live longer than Methuselah. It certainly does not make sensible public policy, and it does not make sensible public policy when we would be discriminating against the future. The future is broadband, high-speed Internet access through DSL. This would allow folks to keep taxing DSL, which has certainly been contrary to the spirit of everything we have done over the last 7 years. It, in effect, would be rewarding bad behavior. It would certainly discriminate against DSL relative to cable. I think this would be a significant mistake. Certainly, there are different technology platforms for Internet access, but for 8 years, the central proposition I tried to advance on this legislation is that there ought to be technological equality; that we ought not to treat all technologies differently. We had a number of jurisdictions violate that. They have gone out and stuck it to DSL. So DSL gets taxed, and cable does not get taxed. We don't think it happens in California, but it certainly has happened around the country. I do not think we ought to let these grandfathers outlive us all. That is essentially where we are going on this issue. We just keep extending the life of these grandfathers. It is going to do great damage to the country's future by particularly discouraging broadband development through DSL. I hope the Senate will oppose the amendment. I cannot say there is anybody I would rather not oppose than the Senator from California. I agree with her on virtually everything under the Sun with respect to public policy. But, Mr. President, I say to the Senate, if they vote for the Feinstein amendment, they are rewarding bad behavior. They are encouraging technological inequality. We have already taken steps to let some of these grandfathers live longer than I certainly would. We are now saying that some of them are going to make Methuselah look young. I think it is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I share the view of the chairman of the Commerce Committee and Senator Dorgan. I think the end is now in sight. I see the distinguished Senator from Virginia on the floor right now, and I commend him for all the effort and the relentless pursuit of a cause that he and I have shared for many years, going back to when he was Governor and when I was the original Senate sponsor. We have held steadfast to the proposition that the Internet, this extraordinary national and global treasure, should not be subject to multiple and discriminatory taxes. I think the earlier Senate vote indicates that a majority of the Senate is prepared to support policies which will ensure that the Internet is healthy and vibrant for the future. I see the chairman of the Commerce Committee on the floor. People felt strongly about the question of telephone calls over the Internet. The chairman of the Commerce Committee came, had a very constructive definition which made clear or clearer what Senator Allen and I have felt all along, and that is that there should not be a change in the status quo. That is very constructive. My guess is that the big challenge over the course of the afternoon will be on the issue of definitions. Certainly there are definitions with respect to how what is called the backbone of the system, the architecture, is handled. Depending on how it is written, that definition could provide for taxes on BlackBerrys and e-mails and the kind of thing that the Senator from Virginia and I have opposed strongly. We will have to oppose that once again, but I want to make it clear, as I did earlier in the afternoon, that we are anxious to deal with the remaining issues in a collegial fashion with the Senator from Tennessee. The Senator from Tennessee has made it clear he wants to move this bill along. I join my colleagues in saying that after 8 years of being at this, literally since the time I came to the Senate early in 1996, I suspect in a few hours the Senate will have acted once more in a bipartisan fashion. I want to wrap up by commending the Senator from Virginia. He has been willing to compromise with respect to issues but he has never compromised on principle, and I appreciate that. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, having been involved in this issue now for 8 years, I can say it has never been easy. Certainly what we have seen today demonstrates that once more. But I think the Senate has made an important statement today; that is, as we try to lay out the policies that will say a lot about the future of the Internet, it is critically important this exciting opportunity for Americans not be subject to more discriminatory taxes. We have said once again in the Senate, we want to try to find common ground around the principle of technological neutrality, for example. If we do not do that, we will be discriminating against the future, because if we do not work it out now in the amendment process, broadband services delivered through DSL would be taxed and Internet access through cable would not be taxed. That is not technological neutrality. What is going to give Americans the best array of technologies at the cheapest prices is true competition where there is a level playing field for the various technologies. I have said repeatedly I don't want to see the people who now get the message ``You've got mail'' to get a message that says ``You've got special taxes.'' My colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with that as well. We have a difference of opinion with respect to how we are going to get that done. Now we will be able to go to the amendment process. I have compared this exercise repeatedly to something resembling root canal work. I make it clear to my friend from Tennessee, the Senator from Delaware that we are going to do everything possible to make sure there is an adequate opportunity for colleagues to offer their amendments and discuss them. These are very technical, complicated issues. I have spent about as much time on the Senate floor discussing these issues over the last 3 days as any Member. I intend to stay at this post so we give everybody who wants a chance to discuss these issues that kind of opportunity. Over the last 7 years, we have seen a lot of reports about dire consequences that come about if we pass this legislation. That has not come to pass. I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. We were told in 1997, if we pass that, we will bring the collapse of the revenue system in States and localities, and revenue went up $7 billion the next year. We have to deal with those issues. In the last two iterations of this legislation, I have said repeatedly that no one has brought forward an example of a local jurisdiction hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce. That is what this bill does; it makes sure you cannot single Internet out for special taxes. We will use this amendment process now to address the concerns of various Senators. A lot of Members did not think we would get to this point today, but we have a chance, working with colleagues, to produce a bipartisan bill that will be passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. I intend to stay and work with the Senator from Tennessee and others to make sure they get the discussion on the topics they feel strongly about and that it is fair and thorough. That is my pledge. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak very briefly after the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. We have had 3 full days of debate on the Internet tax question. I am hopeful we will be able to get cloture on the McCain substitute. If the Alexander proposal, the alternative, is accepted, all across this country folks who now get a message that says ``You've got mail,'' will get a message that says ``You have special taxes.'' What Senator Allen and I have done over the last 3 days on the floor of the Senate is outline, under the Alexander proposal, the scores and scores of local jurisdictions that would be able to impose these special taxes on electronic commerce. Over the last 7 years, we have heard these State and local projections by governmental bodies about how revenue would be lost. In each instance, colleagues, they have not come to pass. In 1997, for example, the National Governors Association said that our Internet tax freedom bill would cause the virtual collapse of the State and local revenue system. That next year revenue went up $7 billion. All we are trying to do in the McCain compromise, and it is, in fact, a compromise--Senator Allen and I have sought a permanent ban on multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. We are compromising now so that it is a 4-year proposal. We have made it clear to the other side regarding telephone calls made over the Internet, the way in which those are handled and taxed would not be changed. So this is a compromise proposal. We have had 3 days of debate. It doesn't involve sales taxes or property taxes or utility taxes or any other kinds of taxes. This is a question of whether there ought to be double taxation on something folks have already paid for, and that is Internet access. I hope we will be able to invoke cloture on the McCain substitute and be able to go on with the amendment process. We have had 3 full days of debate. I compared it to prolonged root canal work because I know this is not inherently the most fascinating subject. I hope today we can invoke cloture on the McCain substitute and get about the task of amending and passing the bill, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Five minutes will be plenty, if that is acceptable to the leader.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hope we can get cloture in a few minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Before the Senator leaves the floor, I don't want to turn this into a bouquet-tossing contest, but I came to the Senate in the winter of 1996 as a new member of the Commerce Committee. The chairman of the committee was exceptionally helpful in terms of working on the legislation then. We have gone through two iterations already. Senator Dorgan and I have spent untold numbers of hours talking about this vastly important bill, more than either of us would have wanted. The Senator from Virginia is here as well, and the fact that he has been involved so extensively has been an enormous help. The Senator from Virginia has consistently talked about standing up for freedom. He is absolutely right. There is a reason the Gray Panthers, for example, are for this legislation. They and millions of other consumers understand how important it is that we not hammer Internet access. We will have other debates with respect to the future of the Internet. Certainly the Senator from North Dakota has talked passionately, for example, about a project the Governors were talking about, the streamlined sales tax concept. So we will have these other debates. But the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who was so gracious to me and the Senator from Virginia, helped us consistently through this 8- year-long battle. I want the chairman of the Commerce Committee to know I am very appreciative of all of the help and support he has given us in this cause. We are going to be wrapping up the work of the Senate in just a few minutes, and a lot of people who have said it just was not in the cards, it just was not to be, the Senate was gridlocked--suffice it to say there will be further debates as we discuss this with the other body. This is a very significant step forward. Every Member of the Senate, in my view--and I have talked to almost every Member about this on a personal basis--every Member understands the value to the opportunity of a healthy and vibrant Internet. What we had over the last few days is a debate about the best set of policies to attain that objective. This will not be the last debate. For example, even in an area where we have come to an agreement with respect to the taxation of telephone calls made over the Internet, this is not the last word. As the Senator from Tennessee and I have discussed, we still have the Federal Communications Commission in a position to take a more comprehensive look, for example, on how phone calls made over the Internet are going to be regulated and dealt with by the various jurisdictions. This debate is sure to continue for many days ahead, but this is a banner day. This is a day when the Senate has made some judgments that will help keep the Internet healthy and vibrant in the days ahead. That is a great success. I commend my colleagues for being patient enough to deal with the subject. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe we have an agreement to share the time. I am allocated 10 minutes to speak on this amendment. I am not going to take 10 minutes, but it will come from the allocation under the agreement worked out by the chairman of the committee and the manager of the bill, Senator Dorgan.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I still have the floor. I know the Senator from North Dakota wants to talk more about the architecture. The point that is being made with respect to broadband and that Senator McCain has touched on is if we now say the Alexander definitions go forward, broadband through DSL is going to be taxed. That is discrimination against the future. It is particularly burdensome for rural areas, the kind of areas I and the Senators from North Dakota and South Carolina represent. The fact is, you are not going to get broadband into small areas through cable. It is not economically efficient to do it. You are going to get broadband to rural areas through DSL. I am prepared--once we make sure DSL is not singled out for discriminatory treatment, as it has been in a number of jurisdictions in the past--to work with the Senator from North Dakota and others to get this matter resolved. Broadband through DSL is going to create a tremendous number of jobs. Brookings has said there are going to be hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment that come about through broadband DSL. The Senator from Arizona is correct in saying we don't have the problem now with respect to broadband exclusively because of taxes. But I can assure my colleagues we will in the future see this problem compounded if broadband secured through DSL is singled out for special treatment. Under the Alexander definition, that would be the case. That is unfortunate. I yield the floor.