Unanimous Consent Request - HR 1828

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST—H.R. 1828

I ask unanimous consent that the order entered with respect to H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability Act, be changed to reflect that the time for consideration of the measure be reduced to 60 minutes—the original time was 90 minutes—that the time be divided as follows: 30 minutes for Senator Specter and 15 minutes each under the control of Senators LUGAR or BOXER or their designees; that at 9 a.m., Friday, November 7, the Senate then proceed to consider the measure under the limitations as provided under the previous order as modified above, with the remaining provisions remaining in effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. VOINOVICH. I object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, because Senator Lautenberg has not had a chance to speak and he has been gracious enough to just give me a couple of minutes to respond to our friend from Tennessee, I think he knows we have a difference of opinion on this issue, but I want him to know how much I appreciate the way he has worked with this Senator. I think he is going to be a great addition to the Senate. I look forward to the many issues where we are going to find common ground, even though this is not one of them.

Just briefly on this unfunded mandate question, I think it is clear that, with the more than 7,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country, if ever there was something that was inherently interstate in nature, it is the Internet. I think we can just imagine the kind of chaos if even a small fraction of these 7,600 taxing jurisdictions took a bite out of the Internet. We would have a crazy quilt of laws with respect to the Internet.

There are a whole host of activities where the Federal Government has essentially made it clear they were inherently interstate in nature and you do not hear the States expressing any grievances. You don't hear States complaining that they can't tax airline tickets or mail or a variety of other things because we are talking about something that is so crystal clear in terms of its very nature—in effect, the essence of article I, section 8, of the Constitution—that this has been an area where the Federal Government has said it is not appropriate to let thousands of local and State jurisdictions simply make a mishmash out of a regulatory regime that needs to be uniform in nature.

I know we are going to talk more about that tomorrow. I am going to go through, tomorrow, the history of the Unfunded Mandates Act that supports the position Senator Allen and I have taken.

Two other points very quickly and then I do want to let our friend from New Jersey have some time for which he has been patiently waiting. With respect to the telecommunications services issue which the Senator from Tennessee has discussed, I want to make it clear that Senator Allen and I have done everything but hire a sky writer to fly over the Capitol, to make it clear that telecommunications services, which can be taxed today, would and should be taxed in the future. It is absolutely clear with respect to all the work we have tried to do, both in the committee and working with various State and local officials, we feel very strongly about it. It is what the bundling issue has been all about in terms of separating out Internet access, which should not be taxed, and telecommunications services, which ought to be taxed.

Senator Allen and I continue to be interested in working with colleagues to try to find common ground in this area, but the two of us have done everything except march down the street with a sandwich board, trying to argue that telecommunications services must be taxed and that it is Internet access about which we are concerned.

Finally, the last point I would make is we need to have a discussion in the Senate with respect to what the competitive playing field will look like under the amendment at least as outlined tonight by the Senator from Tennessee. We have already seen a competitive disadvantage established, given the developments in the last few years between cable and telecommunications. It is the view of the Senator from Virginia and I, as two Members of the Commerce Committee who have focused on this issue for many months, that we think the competitive disadvantage, which has been established in the last few years between cable and telecommunications, will widen under the proposal the Senate is going to be asked to look at tomorrow as an alternative. We are going to have a chance to discuss it.

Again, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee with respect to how he has handled this issue. We have a difference of opinion on it, but I admire the Senator from Tennessee very much and I look forward to working closely with him.

I yield the floor.