THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
In this day and age, economic development in rural areas is becoming more and more dependent upon recreation and strong fish and wildlife numbers. The Fort Peck area is faced with a number of realities. First, the area is in dire need of a fish hatchery. The only hatchery in the region to support warm water species is found in Miles City, Montana. It is struggling to meet the needs of the fisheries in the area, yet it continues to fall short. Additionally, an outbreak of disease or failure in the infrastructure at the Miles City hatchery would leave the entire region reeling with no secondary source to support the area's fisheries.
[Page: S329] GPO's PDF
We are also faced with the reality that despite the promises given, the State of Montana has had to foot the bill for fish hatchery operations in the area. Since about 1950 the State has been funding these operations with little to no support from the Corps of Engineers. A citizens group spanning the State of Montana finally decided to make the federal government keep its promises.
Last year the citizens group organized, and state legislation subsequently passed to authorize the sale of a warm water fishing stamp to begin collecting funds for the eventual operation and maintenance of the hatchery. I helped the group work with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that $125,000 in last year's budget was allocated to a feasibility study for the project, and Montanans kept their end of the bargain by finding another $125,000 to match the Corps expenditure. Clearly, we are putting our money, along with our sweat, where our mouth is.
Recreation is part of the local economy. But the buzzword today is diversity. Diversify your economy. The Fort Peck area depends predominately on agriculture. More irrigated acres probably aren't going to help the area pull itself up by its boot straps. But a stronger recreational and tourism industry sure will help speed things up.
A lot of effort has already gone into this project. A state bill has been passed. The Corps has dedicated a project manager to the project. Citizens have raised money and jumped over more hurdles than I care to count. But the bottom line is that this is a great project with immense support. It is a good investment in the area, and it helps the federal government fulfill one thing that it ought to--its promises.
Mr. President, I want to acknowledge that this legislation is still a work in progress and many of the specifics will change as the Corps completes its feasibility study on the project. It may cost slightly more. It may cost less. The cost share requirement may need to be altered to make the project work, but I feel this legislation must be introduced now to expedite its consideration.
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, and Mr. LEAHY):
S. 2028. A bill to make permanent the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act as it applies to new, multiple, and discriminatory taxes on the Internet ; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
INTERNET NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Internet Non-Discrimination Act. The central principle of this bill is that our tax policy should not discriminate against the most vibrant part of our nation's economy. The legislation would extend indefinitely the Internet Tax Freedom's Act's three-year moratorium on discriminatory taxes against the Internet and electronic commerce. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators ABRAHAM and LEAHY.
Three years ago, when Congressman CHRIS COX and I introduced the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), we said you can't squeeze the new economy into a set of rules written for smokestack industry. At that time, opponents predicted that retailers would vanish from Main Streets across America. Transcripts from hearings held on the legislation in the summer of 1997 are replete with opponents' predictions that a parade of horribles would be visited on every small merchant in every town in the United States. I am pleased to report that none of the horribles has come to pass.
In fact, this is what has happened in the 15 months since the Internet Tax Freedom Act was passed by the Senate 98-2 and became law.
States and localities have continued to collect sales and use taxes, and state budgets ended fiscal l999 with a $35 billion surplus. In California--one of the most wired states--1999 sales tax collections are up 20 percent over 1998.
Traditional bricks and mortar retailers had one of their best holiday seasons, recording a nearly 8% jump in sales over the previous year.
A recent survey of 1,500 Main Street businesses nationwide found that 74 percent have gone online since l997.
E-commerce has become part of the retail landscape, but still accounts for only \3/10\s of one percent of total retail sales.
States with the highest level of Internet use are also those with some of the largest gains in tax revenues.
It is clear to me that while state and local tax collectors sat wringing their hands, America's merchants were working on web pages. Main Street merchants seized the opportunity to expand their sales to new markets by going online. They also recognized the efficiencies of conducting their business-to-business transactions online. Rather than weaken Main Street merchants, the Internet has strengthened them. Rather than drain state and local tax coffers, the technological neutrality of the Internet Tax Freedom Act allowed online business to grow and state and local authorities to continue to collect lawful, nondiscriminatory taxes. The technological neutrality of the ITFA contributed to the rapid transformation of a bricks and mortar economy into a clicks and mortar economy.
I want the success of the bricks and clicks economy to continue, but consumers and businesses need some certainty. They need to know they won't have to start paying new taxes targeted specifically at e-commerce when the current moratorium expires in October 2001. That's why the ban on discriminatory taxes against the Internet and e-commerce should be made permanent.
The Internet Non-Discrimination Act we are introducing today will do just that. It continues the policy of technological neutrality. It allows state and local tax authorities to continue to collect lawful, nondiscriminatory sales or use taxes on online sales. It will give the governors time to see if they can move forward with their technological fix for collecting remote sales and use tax- -a voluntary plan which will require the cooperation of every business in this nation, from Bandon, Oregon to Bangor, Maine. And, finally, it extends permanently a policy that has worked well for the last 15 months and under which consumers, businesses and state and local tax collectors have lived--and thrived.
In about two months the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce will issue its final report. After having talked yesterday with the Chairman of the Commission, Virginia Governor James Gilmore, I am hopeful that the Commission will endorse the approach we are taking in this bill.
If Congress does not act this year to extend the technologically neutral policy that is at the heart of the Internet Non-Discrimination Act, consumers and businesses will face thousands of tax authorities in this country jumping into their pockets when the current moratorium expires in October 2001. Consumers and businesses want certainty that they won't suddenly be facing an onslaught of new, confusing and discriminatory taxes.
A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman CHRIS COX, with whom I've worked on this issue for four years now. I am hopeful that this, our fourth bipartisan Internet effort, will be as successful as our previous three. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Nondiscrimination Act''.
SEC. 2. REPLACEMENT OF MORATORIUM WITH PERMANENT BAN ON NEW, MULTIPLE, AND DISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON THE INTERNET.
Section 1101(a) of title XI of division C of Public Law 105-277 is amended by striking ``during the period beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on or after October 1, 1998.''
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator WYDEN, in introducing legislation to extend indefinitely the current moratorium on new and discriminatory Internet taxes. Once again, Senator WYDEN has demonstrated his grasp of the crucial issues surrounding electronic commerce and has moved rapidly to assure that potential barriers to the new economy are eliminated before they do any harm. I am pleased to join him in his latest effort.
[Page: S330] GPO's PDF
By now, it is obvious to everyone that e-commerce is the wave of the future. As a matter of fact, it's safe to say that the future is already here. During the week of December 6 alone, Americans bought $1.22 billion of merchandise online. Sales for 1999 should reach $64.8 billion. Beyond shopping, 5.3 million households had access to financial transactions like electronic banking and stock trading by the end of last year.
The rate of growth for Internet commerce has been exponential for the past several years. Unfortunately, it's also a tempting target for taxation by the Federal Government, States and localities. And that could slow the growth of e-commerce and of our entire economy.
We responded to this potential problem by passing Senator WYDEN's legislation in 1998, to place a three-year moratorium on new or discriminatory Internet taxes, fees or charges. That legislation also established a Commission to explore the issue of Internet taxation and to submit to Congress a list of recommendations on how the Federal Government should legislate in this area.
We are only halfway through the moratorium, but already it seems there are only two possible conclusions to the Commission. The first is that the wide differences of opinion within the Commission will make it impossible for the members to muster the majority of support necessary to submit a report. This is worrisome, Mr. President, because, unless action is taken by this Congress, the moratorium will expire and the door will be opened to new, discriminatory taxes on the Internet.
The other possibility, more recently offered, is that the Commission may actually recommend an extension of the current moratorium. Whatever the conclusion therefore, the role of Congress is clear; the Internet Tax Moratorium must be extended indefinitely. And because of the limited number of legislative days scheduled in this election year, the process of doing so
should begin now.
As everyone knows, the current moratorium only precludes new and discriminatory taxes. It does not address the more difficult question of how to apply existing, State sales taxes to Internet transactions. The Supreme Court has spoken to this issue, ruling that States can indeed impose taxes on transactions much like Internet sales- -namely catalog sales. However, States cannot force a business to collect sales taxes on purchases made to States where they have no physical presence or ``nexus.'' This discrepancy in sales taxation between main street businesses and those that sell goods over the Internet will be difficult to address for the following reasons:
First, very soon every business will be an e-business in the sense that they will be using the Internet for sales, supplies, contracting and other purposes. We couldn't stop this process if we wanted to, and we shouldn't want to. According to one recent survey, 74 percent of brick and mortar, main street businesses have added ``click and mortar'' Internet services to their business.
Second, the border less nature of the Internet is going to make it difficult--if not impossible--to determine what constitutes ``nexus.'' For example, what happens when someone in California uses America Online in Virginia to order fudge from the ``shopmackinac'' website in Michigan, and ships them to a friend in Rhode Island? Which State should claim ``nexus?''
Perhaps a ``destination-based'' Internet sales tax regime would be more effective in terms of collecting State sales taxes. Whatever the eventual outcome, I believe that in light of the present uncertainty it would not be proper for Congress to intervene on this issue. The States must have every opportunity to debate and possibly even initiate a model for addressing the current impasse.
What is necessary is Congressional action to ensure that new, discriminatory taxes are not levied on the Internet by States or localities as a means of substituting perceived lost revenue. Many Governors--including Governor Engler of Michigan--support an extension of the current Internet tax moratorium.
Access fees and similar Internet taxes, whether imposed by the States, localities, or the Federal government, pose a grave threat to the continued evolution of the Internet. America is experiencing a record period of growth and prosperity. In my view, the continued expansion of the economy is due primarily to electronic commerce. The spirit of entrepreneurship which has energized our nation, the adoption of new business models to more fully explore marketing and
sales possibilities and the dramatic increase in consumer and business services are all largely the product of our new e-economy. Why on earth would anyone, or any government, want to threaten this dynamic medium when it is still in its infancy by increasing the cost of doing business over the Internet? I certainly do not, and I will continue to work to ensure that neither the Federal government nor other units of government threaten electronic commerce.
If we are able to keep the government focused on removing impediments to electronic commerce rather than interfering in the development and implementation of new technologies then very soon the e-economy will simply be the economy, and our nation will be more prosperous as a result.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. ROBB, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HELMS, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. REED, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. HOLLINGS):
S. 2029. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit telemarketers from interfering with the caller identification service of any person to whom a telephone solicitation is made, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
THE KNOW YOUR CALLER ACT OF 2000
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join today with my friend from Tennessee, Senator FRIST, to introduce the Know Your Caller Act of 2000--a bill that will make a real and immediate difference in the lives of all Americans.
Not a week goes by that I don't hear from Virginians about the intrusion of telemarketers into their homes. Although Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, in 1991, the law is widely abused--telemarketers openly disregard the law, refusing to identify themselves when asked, and ignoring requests to be placed on ``do not call lists.''
In recent years, consumers have turned to caller ID services to help them screen out unwanted calls and report those who violate current law to the authorities. Unfortunately, most telemarketers actively block their number from being displayed on caller ID systems, making it difficult to determine the name and employer of the telemarketer. We already require telemarketers to identify themselves when they call, and we should apply this same requirement to their caller ID information.
The Know Your Caller Act of 2000 will prevent companies from blocking their identities on caller ID. Our legislation will require every phone solicitor to reveal the name of the telemarketer who is making the call, as well as a valid telephone number where that company can be reached for purposes of being placed on the do-not-call lists required under current law.
It's time that we gave consumers a way to fight back against these intrusions into their homes, and this bill is the perfect way to do so: by putting an end to caller ID blocks, we can empower the consumer to take action against violators of the TCPA and regain control of their telephones. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator FRIST and me in supporting this important consumer protection bill.
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 2032. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to address the issue of mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
MOTHER-TO-CHILD HIV PREVENTION ACT OF 2000
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. FEINGOLD, the Mother-to-child HIV Prevention Act, a bill that seeks to address mother-to-child transmission of HIV in developing regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
[Page: S331] GPO's PDF
According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), nearly 4.5 million children below the age of 15 years have been infected with HIV since the AIDS epidemic began. More than 3 million have already died of AIDS. Children are becoming infected at the rate of nearly one child every minute, and the overwhelming majority of these children acquired the infection from their mothers.
In July 1999, the National Institutes of Health released a report on the effectiveness of a drug called nevirapine (NVP) in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. NVP is given just once to the mother during labor and once to the baby within three days after birth. It costs $4 per tablet. The discovery of this relatively simple and inexpensive drug regimen--along with others like it--has created an unprecedented opportunity for international cooperation in the fight against the vertical transmission of HIV.
USAID is currently engaged in four of the eleven vertical transmission pilot projects in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These studies will be completed within the year, at which point the intervention programs can undergo a significant increase in scale. But additional funding is needed.
The cost-effectiveness of these programs is clear. New antiretroviral drug strategies can be a force for social change, providing the opportunity and impetus needed to address long-standing problems in the health care system and the profound stigma associated with HIV-infection and the AIDS disease.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents