Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act

INTERNET TAX NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to be brief. I have appreciated the distinguished Senator from South Carolina working with me on this over the years.

The distinguished Senator from South Carolina is absolutely right. The committee bill did the job right. The committee bill kept in place the technological neutrality that we have established over the years—the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Stevens, who has now left the floor, Chairman McCain, and others. The reason we did that years ago is that we did not have technological neutrality. The Internet was subject to taxes that were not subject to other areas, such as the snail mail delivery of papers.

What has happened, however, is under the substitute that is being offered by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, we get away from the competitive neutrality that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has been advocating.

I want to be very specific about how that is being done, because I think a lot of Members believe that if they vote for the proposal by the Senator from Tennessee that it is somehow a safe vote, that all they are doing is continuing the status quo and it is really kind of an innocuous approach. It is not a safe vote. It is a vote to increase taxes.

I want to be very specific in explaining how that is the case. What has happened as a result of changes in technology over the last few years is you now have, in a number of jurisdictions, DSL—Internet access through DSL being taxed but Internet access through cable modems not being taxed. That is what has happened as a result of the changes in technology and the various changes in government policy. So you already have been moving away from the competitive neutrality we have sought with respect to this issue.

Let me repeat that. Today, Internet access through DSL is being taxed in a number of jurisdictions and Internet access through cable modem can't be taxed anywhere.

Unfortunately, what would happen under the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee is that you would make it easier to continue that competitive disadvantage and, particularly under the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee, it would be easier to tax wireless Blackberry services.

I am of the view that with 391 separate taxes on telecommunications administered in 10,000 different jurisdictions, people across America who have these Blackberrys, which have wireless Internet access, would be subject to scores of new taxes.

So I say to colleagues who are looking at this issue and thinking that somehow the idea of a 2-year proposal is kind of an innocuous safe haven and really not a tax increase—I ask them to think about what it is going to mean for Blackberry users across the country.

These are wireless devices. In a number of jurisdictions where Internet access is obtained through DSL, those services are already being taxed. That would be expanded under the 2-year alternative.

What I would like us to do is what I believe we sought to do 5 years ago when Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and others got together, and that is to ensure strict neutrality with respect to technology. The Internet wouldn't get a preference; the Internet wouldn't be hurt. The problem now that wireless users are facing with respect to DSL will be compounded if this 2-year alternative goes forward. I hope my colleagues will reject it for the reasons I outlined this morning.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who has worked with me on this now for 7 years, we have made some significant headway in the last half hour, 45 minutes. To get this done, there are some difficult choices that have to be made. One that would be very painful for me, given my involvement in the original law, would be to accept some sort of time limit rather than make it permanent.

I say to the Senate, I am willing to look at that in the name of trying to find common ground. What we can't have as we go through this is to have DSLs, this tremendously exciting service which in so many instances is going to be the key for folks getting Internet access in a wireless fashion, hammered again and again in the future. We are going to see if we can find common ground.

The point of this law more than 5 years ago was to ensure technological neutrality so the Internet and the various ways it is delivered would not, in some way, advance some at the expense of others. We still have to find a way for that technological neutrality.

We may be able, given the fact that the staffs are working now to have a breakthrough on this in the next half an hour, but as the author of the original law in the Senate, I want to make it clear that I am open to trying to find some common ground and make some significant concessions to do it. That is what we are considering now.