[Page: S4937]
---

   Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I filed this past week to H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act. This amendment has a twofold purpose. First, it highlights the need to act on S. 2097, the Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000. This critical legislation passed the Senate by a unanimous, 97-0, vote on March 30 of this year. The House version of this bill, H.R. 3615, also passed by an overwhelming 375-37 margin. Yet here we are 2 1/2 months later with no effort to move this bipartisan legislation forward toward enactment.

   In the meantime, the other body has considered an extension of the Internet tax moratorium for an additional 5 years. I supported the original Internet Nondiscrimination Act which created a 3-year moratorium on new taxes on the Internet while we considered the various ramifications of e-commerce taxation issues.

   That original moratorium does not expire until next October. Yet here we are 16 months in advance of that expiration preparing to consider an additional 5-year expansion. Not only that, but with this new legislation, we renege, frankly, on a promise made under the 1998 act which grandfathered existing State taxes on Internet services. That agreement was essential to securing the overwhelming support which S. 442 ultimately received.

   I believe we should not be placing taxes on access to the Internet, but that is not the issue. The issue is the implementation of already existing sales tax responsibilities. Sales tax is a critical component of State and local revenues, especially in States such as South Dakota that do not have an income tax. More than half of our State budget derives from the sales tax. That is the money that goes to education,

[Page: S4938]

   H.R. 3709 does not foreclose the possibility of collecting sales tax on products purchased over the Internet. In fact, it is silent on this issue. That silence, however, is almost as dangerous to State and local government as an explicit rejection of equal treatment for brick and mortar stores. By filing this amendment to H.R. 3709, I want it made clear that I will oppose this legislation moving forward until it establishes a comprehensive review of Internet-related tax policy.

   I remain absolutely opposed to any new tax on the Internet. Internet usage ought to be encouaged and kept affordable. Public policy ought to promote tax-free Internet access, but it makes no sense that some sales are subject to sales tax while others are not. We need a level playing field for everyone. It is up to each individual State and municipality to decide for itself whether it wants to have a sales tax--but once that decision is made, it ought to apply uniformly to sales without regard to the particular technology utilized in making the sale. This correction must be considered in the context of any effort to extend the ongoing Internet tax moratorium.

   Although there are many pieces of critical legislation which would serve to highlight the tax fairness issues raised by H.R. 3709, I want to focus on S. 2097, the local-into-local television act.

   Under legislation we passed this past year, satellite companies are for the first time free to broadcast local network programming into local markets. That ability has already benefited thousands of viewers and promoted competition in the broadcast delivery industry. What S. 2097 seeks to accomplish is to make that benefit a reality for Americans who live outside the largest 40 television markets.

   Like many of my colleagues, I represent a State, South Dakota, with rural viewers that should not be left out of the information age. South Dakota is one of the 16 States that do not have a single city among the top 70 markets. Sixteen States have no television markets within the top 70. Without this loan guarantee, markets such as Sioux Falls and Rapid City will never get local-into-local service, and rural South Dakotans will not have an opportunity to receive their local networks over the satellite signals.

   This proposal is more than just getting sports or entertainment programming over your local channels. It is a critical way to receive important local news, storm information, road reports, school closing information, and civic affairs information.

   Rural Americans need the same opportunity to access their local networks as do our urban friends. This legislation will provide that opportunity.

   We have worked very hard in the Banking Committee and on the floor to achieve strong bipartisan legislation. Senators SARBANES, BAUCUS, GRAMM, BURNS, and others worked diligently to find the accommodations to satisfy everyone's concerns. We have a final product which will ultimately result in local-into-local broadcasting for rural America, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner that limits the taxpayer exposure.

   The overwhelming vote in both the House and Senate demonstrates the soundness of this legislation. It is absolutely critical for the millions of Americans who live outside our major urban areas. It is the promised missing component of last year's Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act.

   This issue has aroused the greatest level of constituent concern in many States in quite some time. S. 2097 provides a fiscally responsible and prudent response to the concerns raised by thousands of our constituents, protecting the taxpayer interests while at the same time helping to provide this service. I intend to offer this legislation to every vehicle possible this year until we have the opportunity to finish what we started and provide this essential service to all Americans.

   Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

END