[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3830-H3840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3916, TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX REPEAL
ACT
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 511 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 511
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3916) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on
telephone and other communication services. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended
by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill
shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 511 is a closed rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act. This
bill is designed to amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the
excise tax on telephone and other communications services.
H. Res. 511 provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill
shall be considered as adopted upon adoption of the resolution.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to unintended consequences in crafting tax
policy, the Federal Government has shown a tendency to lead the way. If
you remember, in 1991 the U.S. Congress passed a luxury tax on yachts
to punish the rich, a tax that subsequently bankrupted American
companies, forced sales in that sector to drop 75 percent, and resulted
in the loss of about 30,000 jobs. That Congress thought that the luxury
tax was a tax on the rich, and the unintended consequences of their
actions resulted in a tax on American workers and the loss of their
jobs.
{time} 1200
Today we are going to discuss the telecommunications tax, a tax that
is currently having the unintended consequence of limiting the
opportunities of lower- and middle-income Americans to have affordable
access to the information superhighway. In effect, it is a tax on
talking and on access to the Internet.
This particular telecommunications tax was enacted by Congress in
1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American
[[Page H3831]]
War. While the war has been over for 102 years, like most temporary
taxes, it is now a permanent tax. In 1990, the same tax-happy Congress
that brought you the disastrous luxury boat tax, decided in its wisdom
to make the telecommunications tax permanent.
The tax originally consisted of a penny tax on long distance calls
costing more than 15 cents. It is important to note that in 1898 there
were approximately 1,376 telephones in this entire country, and that,
of course, this luxury tax would affect only the very, very rich.
However, in the 21st century, 102 years after this temporary tax was
initially enacted, this tax hits not just the rich, but all Americans.
In fact, this regressive tax hammers lower-income Americans the
hardest. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, families earning
between $10,000 and $30,000 a year spend between 3 and 4 percent of
their incomes on telecommunications. Those Americans making $70,000 or
more each year spend about 1 percent of their income on
telecommunications.
Nonetheless, the truth is that all Americans must now pay a 3 percent
tax on their phone bill, an estimated 252 million business and
residential phone lines. The tax can be applied to telecommunications
services such as general household phone lines, cellular phones, fax
lines, computer modem lines, subscriber line charges, add-on features
such as call waiting and caller ID, toll call services and directory
assistance. As you may have guessed, all Americans, rich and poor, now
have to pay the tax.
Mr. Speaker, this is just one more tax that makes the costs
prohibitive for lower-income Americans to go online and participate in
the new high-tech economy. As one who supports reducing the overall tax
burden on American families, I wholeheartedly support this bill. H.R.
3916, which will reduce the tax to 2 percent beginning 30 days after
enactment, reduces the tax to 1 percent on October 1, 2001, and repeals
the tax entirely on October 1, 2002.
The high-tech revolution has changed the way that every American
works and lives and has provided Americans with more freedom,
prosperity, and job opportunities for the future. The foolish and
shortsighted tax policies of the 101st Congress should not be permitted
to act as an unreasonable toll against low- and middle-income Americans
attempting to get on the information superhighway.
This Congress will repeal the telecom tax and ensure that excessive
government taxation does not threaten the ability of all Americans to
participate in opportunities that will be presented in the high-tech
future.
This rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules on
Tuesday, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with
general debate and consideration of this bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial measure that came out of the
Committee on Ways and Means unanimously. The measure would repeal over
3 years the 3 percent telephone excise tax imposed originally to
finance the Spanish-American War. Under the bill, the 3 percent tax
would be reduced to 2 percent 30 days after it becomes law, it will
drop to 1 percent October 1, 2001, and would be fully repealed on
October 1, 2002.
The tax has been repealed on two previous occasions, but was brought
back in different forms to pay for World War I and World War II, and
then increased to help fund the Vietnam War. It was made permanent in
1990, with the money going into the general treasury.
Phasing out this excise tax is a worthy objective, as is it is
becoming increasingly difficult to administer as technological advances
blur the distinction between taxable and nontaxable communications
services. I would echo the concerns expressed by the administration,
however, that this revision should be enacted as part of an overall
budget framework for maintaining fiscal discipline, for paying down the
national debt and for extending the solvency of Medicare and Social
Security. The administration estimates that Federal receipts would be
reduced by $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $20 billion over fiscal
years 2000 to 2005.
Mr. Speaker, again, I do not oppose the underlying bill, but the
Committee on Rules missed a golden opportunity during consideration of
this measure, an opportunity to address what is rapidly becoming a
digital divide in our Nation between those who have access to
technology and those who do not. Several of my colleagues offered
amendments to tackle this divide, but the majority in the Committee on
Rules chose to disallow their consideration.
I am going to urge Members to vote no on the previous question, and,
if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to make in order the Towns-Waters-Dingell substitute and the Wynn
substitute. Both of these proposals immediately cut the telephone
excise tax from 3 percent to 1 percent, and then eliminate it
altogether by September 30, 2002.
The Democratic amendments would use the revenues from the phased-out
telecommunications excise tax to fund various programs and grants
designed to bridge the digital divide. No one doubts that electronic
commerce has the opportunity to dominate our country's economic future,
but this will happen only if electronic commerce is available to
everyone in the country. Electronic commerce cannot work if low-income
populations in our urban centers, in our rural communities, as well as
Native Americans, do not have access to it. The Federal Government has
the responsibility for ensuring that our children and adults have the
opportunity to acquire the skills needed to succeed in a digital work
world.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, here we are to talk about repealing a tax
that was put on in 1898 to fight the Spanish-American War. We thought
the war lasted 8 months. I used to teach history at high school and
then later at college, and I suggested that was one of our quickest
wars, only to find out as we look at how many dollars have been
collected on this tax over the years that in any measure of dollars,
the Spanish-American War turned out to be the most expensive war in the
country's history; $5 billion collected last year in a tax that was put
on in 1898 to fight the Spanish-American War.
Of course, it was a tax on only the rich, because in 1898 only the
rich had telephones. Now it is a tax on the people whose telephone is
the lifeline of their life. It is a tax on people who use the telephone
only for the most basic necessity, because it is a tax on the local
service only. If you are on a fixed income, if you are a senior
citizen, if you have a telephone to call your family, to call the
doctor, to make an emergency call, if you never make a long distance
call, if you try to pay only the smallest amount you can possibly pay
and have a telephone, you pay this tax.
Because we have a surplus, because we have balanced the budget, the
old arguments of we need this money, how would we replace it, what
program would we cut, no longer work.
This is a reaction to what can happen when you show fiscal
responsibility. It is a reaction to what happens when the Congress
begins to use the yardstick of common sense. It is a reaction of what
can happen when you take a tax that has now been on the books for
almost every telephone bill for the last 102 years, occasionally phased
out for a brief period of time, but always snatched right back. If we
pass this bill, this rule today, which I am for, and if we pass this
bill today, within the next few months, Americans that have on their
telephone bill the line that says Federal tax or excise tax on their
local phone service, will no longer have that. We eliminate this tax on
the rich from 1898 that became a tax on those in the most difficult
circumstances in the year 2000.
I am pleased that the Committee on Rules has brought this rule to the
floor today, and pleased that the Committee
[[Page H3832]]
on Commerce is bringing this bill to the floor. I urge passage of both.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on
Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the repeal of the
telephone excise tax, to thank the dear gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), but to oppose the rule.
I do not quite understand why my Republican colleagues, who profess
to wish to give the consumers a tax cut, have denied us an opportunity
to offer an amendment which would give consumers an even bigger tax cut
than the bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means in the
amendment which would have been offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Towns), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and myself.
The interesting thing is the leadership on the majority side
seriously miscalculated if they believed that this is a tax reform that
most Americans want. I know constituents care about tax cuts, but they
want them to put money in the pockets of the citizenry, rather than
making Republican Congressmen look good.
The Towns-Waters-Dingell amendment, which is widely supported on this
side, would save consumers about $1.5 billion more than the committee
bill over the next 2\1/2\ years. During the phase-out period, our
amendment also puts revenues from the excise tax into a trust fund to
pay for programs that create digital opportunity for Americans who live
in underserved rural and urban areas.
Why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle afraid? Why do
they not desire our approach? We give the tax cut earlier on in larger
amounts, but we also put the money to work in spending for creating a
tax fund which would enable us to begin to provide for access to the
Internet and advanced telecommunications services for people of low
income in rural and in underserved urban areas. That is what we should
be really doing here.
Unfortunately, the need which has to be met cannot be met without
active assistance of the Government in terms of opening up these kinds
of services by putting revenues collected from this excise tax into
funds which will expand opportunity to receive services and to
eliminate the digital divide. Without government help, Mr. Speaker,
there are major areas of the country, major urban areas, as well as
rural communities, where broad band services will simply not be
provided. For our children to know how to use on-line services,
resources and devices, we have to have this kind of intercession; not
to establish any Federal preference, but, rather, to expand
opportunities for service and to expand opportunities for all people
involved in delivering this kind of service and an opportunity to
compete fairly.
I hope that when the previous question is raised, my colleagues will
vote no. I hope that when the question is raised, Members will vote no
on the rule, so that we can get down to a proposal which in fact will
benefit the country.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman that in 1993
and 1994 with overwhelming majorities in both bodies and a Democrat
President, he could have done anything he wanted with that 3 percent
and solved all of those problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to, since he has entered the Chamber,
congratulate my very good friend, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio
(Mr. Portman), for having taken the lead on this extremely important
issue. He has done a great job in pointing to the importance of it and
putting together a coalition that has included my colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).
Mr. Speaker, creating digital opportunity is the priority that we
have. I do not like to call it the digital divide. What we want to do
is we want to make sure that we create opportunities for every single
American to be able to have access to this information economy.
We have this information-based economy, and we all know that it is
tied to virtually everything that goes through some sort of
telecommunications area, and the hindrance that is there is a tax. Our
great historian, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), talked about
the cost of the Spanish-American War and the fact that last year $5
billion was collected for that. We are finally going to declare
victory; and at the same time, we are going to reduce that one burden
that has stood in the way of enhancing digital opportunity.
The fact is, again, telecommunications is the foundation of this
information-age economy that we have developed. In my State alone, it
is amazing to look at the number of jobs, the number of families that
are able to maintain and expand their standard of living because of
these opportunities. It is about 800,000 in my State that have been
created since 1993; and nationwide it is approaching 5 million, about
4.8 million.
{time} 1215
We want to do everything we can to expand that.
Again, in California, 45 percent of small businesses, and the small
business sector, as we all know, is the backbone of our economy; 45
percent of those small businesses say that they use the Internet to do
business, and anything that stands in the way to expand that, we very
much want to repeal and address.
So I believe that we have a great opportunity here to strike a blow
for our quest to expand opportunities for every single American, to get
in and enjoy this economy, because when we look at a family that has
earned $25,000 or less, they have said that the one thing that stands
in the way of their getting into this information-age economy is the
cost. So this is one step, a very important step, that we can take
towards decreasing that cost and enhancing opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote. This will be another wonderful
accomplishment when we move this through to the leadership, the Speaker
of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and this great
and very, very, very successful 106th Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous question, because
it undermines our efforts to bridge the digital divide. I want to thank
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
for coming up with an ingenious and innovative approach to providing a
response to this very important and very serious problem.
It is good to eliminate the excise tax and reduce telephone bills
across the country, but what if one does not have a telephone in the
first place, as we found on so many of our Indian reservations around
the country where 50 percent of the people did not have telephones at
all and, where in so many of our low-income communities, rural and
urban, that same problem persists where telephone lines are not
available to even begin to think about Internet access.
More and more, America is transforming into a technology-driven
nation, with every institution being impacted by the Internet and e-
mail. In this new tech-driven economy, computers are becoming the
crucial link to education, to defense, to information, and training,
and to commerce.
For all Americans, personal and economic success will depend upon
having the ability to understand and use these powerful information
tools. However, according to the Commerce Department report, Defining
the Digital Divide, a large segment of the population have no access to
technology at all.
Unless this changes, these poor families in both urban and rural
areas will
[[Page H3833]]
be left behind. Millions of Americans will not have the tools necessary
to compete in the new economy and will become the first second-class
citizens of the information age.
But let us not kid ourselves. The digital divide is not just a
problem for the residents of these distressed and rural areas and these
urban communities. It is a problem for the entire national economy as a
whole. If we do not extend technology access to all Americans, our
skilled labor force will continue to be depleted, millions of tech jobs
will continue to go unfilled, and private industries and the military
will continue to have problems recruiting and retaining highly skilled
individuals.
H1B visas are not the answer. Hiring foreign workers will not solve
our growing, long-term needs for highly skilled workers. Surrendering
our Nation's pre-eminence is also not an option. The answer is to
eliminate this digital divide and ensure that all Americans are given
access to technology and training.
The private and public sector both understand the importance of
bridging the digital divide in America and are taking steps to bring
technology to schools and libraries across America. I applaud them for
their efforts. However, these efforts are not enough.
To truly bridge the digital divide and improve the way our children
learn, the Federal Government must step in and help provide funds to
bolster these efforts and extend technology access to every home in
America. Only then can we assure that all of our children will have the
tools necessary to compete in this tech-driven economy.
I and many of my colleagues have numerous bipartisan legislative
proposals to address the digital divide and extend technology for
access to schools, libraries, computer centers and homes of all
Americans. Many of these proposals would require Federal funding.
Mr. Speaker, a defeat of the previous question will allow my
colleagues and I to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Towns) to set aside the phasing out of the telephone excise
tax in a separate digital divide fund, a fund that can be used to
finance the massive effort needed to extend technology. We cannot and
should not let the opportunity to set aside these revenues pass us by.
I urge defeat of the previous question.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), the sponsor of the
underlying bill.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia very
much for his support of this legislation and for allowing me to speak
today on the rule. We are talking about the telephone excise tax. I
want to get back to that and then perhaps address a couple of the
points that have been made by my friends on the other side.
First of all, to take us back to where we are here, this is a
bipartisan effort that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I
started some time ago; it has been bipartisan from the start. It is an
attempt to look at our Tax Code in a time of prosperity and budget
surpluses and see what makes sense and what does not. It is our sense
that this is a perfect candidate for repeal.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) spoke earlier, the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he has also been a leader on
this and also on the general issue of bringing to the attention of this
Congress that telecommunications is indeed, as he said, a foundation of
our economic growth. This is one part of that.
This particular tax started back in 1898 at a time when the U.S. was
engaged in a war with the Spanish and we wanted to get a little
revenue, so we went after a luxury item called a telephone that very
few Americans had, only the wealthy; and we said, let us put a tax on
this telephone, that very few people have, to help pay for this war.
Teddy Roosevelt was just emerging as a national figure, as a war hero,
and it was 102 years ago. It has gone up and down over the years.
The history is actually very interesting, including the fact that
during the Vietnam War, this tax was increased to 10 percent to help
defray the costs of the Vietnam War. In fact, people were burning their
phone bills on the street, as well as their draft cards, to try to
protest the Vietnam War. But it is also a great example of what seems
to me to be a truism, which is once you put a tax in place in this
town, it is very difficult to get rid of it. In this case, it was a
temporary luxury tax on an item that is no longer a luxury, a
telephone.
From a tax policy perspective, it is even worse. First, it is, of
course, regressive. Families with lower incomes pay a disproportionate
share of their family budget for the phone bill. Practically every
family in America has a phone now. Ninety four percent of Americans
have telephones. The seniors are particularly hard hit by this. They
are on fixed incomes. They rely on the telephone as a lifeline, as a
lifeline to the outside world, so their budget is particularly hard hit
by this. So it is regressive.
Second, it is not like other Federal excise taxes used for any
purpose. It goes into general revenues. It is a revenue-grab, rather
than, for example, the gas tax which goes to repair our roads and
bridges. It is not even a sin tax, and there are some Federal excise
taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Again, this one goes to no particular
purpose. So from a tax policy perspective, at a time when we have the
luxury to sit back and look at our Tax Code, what makes sense and what
does not, it makes all the sense in the world to repeal this one.
Finally, and most importantly, I think, in addressing the questions
that have been raised today, it is a tax on telecommunications. Mr.
Speaker, 96 percent of the Internet goes over phone lines, as we heard
earlier today. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talked about
it as the foundation of our economic growth. There is no more important
catalyst to the economic growth. We are hearing today about our first
quarter results, over 5 percent growth, this is because of technology;
and telecommunications as a real driver in our economic growth.
This is a tax on every single Internet user. It is a tax on every
small company in America. The large companies often have private lines,
they are not paying this tax, but the small companies get hid the
hardest. So at a time when we are concerned about the digital divide
and access to the Internet, I think this is a great product.
Now, I understand there is another proposal coming from the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Towns); and he is a friend, a good friend. I have
not talked to him about the proposal. It has not been through our
committee, I do not think it has been through the Committee on Commerce
yet either, nor have there been any hearings on it. So I, frankly, do
not know much about it.
Again, we have been at this for several months, and I have not heard
of it yet. But I am perfectly willing to sit down with the gentleman
and others and talk about this, because I agree that we need to address
the digital divide. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) and I,
for instance, have a bill that we have been trying to get through that
expands the ability to give a computer to a school. Right now it is a
tax deduction, we think it ought to be a tax credit. We think other
computers in the current status, which is computers only 2 years old,
ought to be eligible. So I am very sympathetic to that general notion.
But the thought of taking this phone tax and getting rid of it and
giving those revenues back to those families, particularly those
families again on the lower income scale that really pay a
disproportionate share to me is what we ought to be doing here today,
not taking that money and putting it into a trust fund that the
government may use, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said,
I understand, for underserved areas, rural areas and so on. Let us look
at that another day. Let us let this process proceed.
Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot on this floor about how, gee, we are so
partisan in the House of Representatives, and then when we bring a good
bipartisan bill to the floor that has been bipartisan from the start,
and I see my colleague from Texas who has been part of this from the
start, and others, I think we ought to, as a group, come together and
actually get something done for the American people and send it to the
Senate with a strong bipartisan vote. Let us not slow this down or stop
it or make it a confused product by adding new things at this point
that are not items
[[Page H3834]]
that have been vetted in the process or frankly that have been part of
this process. Let us move this on to the Senate with a strong
bipartisan vote so that we can actually get it to the President's desk
and get it done for our constituents.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Towns).
(Mr. TOWNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat
the previous question and to allow the House to make in order a
substitute that I would like to offer with the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Given the opportunity, I do believe many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle would enthusiastically support our substitute which
would give Americans a bigger tax cut than H.R. 3961 and begin to close
the digital divide, with no new costs to taxpayers. We cannot ignore
the digital divide issue; we must improve the way our children learn.
Specifically, our proposed amendment would immediately reduce the
telecommunications excise tax from 3 percent to 1 percent, and would
repeal the tax entirely by September 30, 2002. This tax cut would give
Americans over $1.5 billion, that is B as in boy, more in tax relief
than they would get under H.R. 3961.
Mr. Speaker, I think all Americans would benefit from the repeal of
this regressive tax on talking, and a vote in support of the previous
question is a vote against giving Americans greater tax relief than the
bill currently gives. I believe this is an important improvement.
Our proposed amendment would also dedicate the funds collected by
this tax to telecommunications projects to help close the digital
divide. Just as money collected from the gasoline tax is used to
improve our Nation's highway infrastructure, money collected from the
telephone excise tax should be devoted to improving our
telecommunications infrastructure.
For example, money in our Digital Divide Bridge trust fund could be
used to fund grants and loan guarantees to accelerate private sector
deployment of broadband networks in rural areas such as California,
Louisiana, and the western United States. The projects may also include
supporting wireless high-speed Internet development to schools in
underserved urban areas like Brooklyn, for instance.
We believe the revenue generated from this telecommunications tax
should be earmarked for telecommunications projects, instead of getting
lost in the general revenue and allowing the digital divide to continue
to go unabated. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by urging my
colleagues to defeat the previous question and to make our proposed
amendment in order.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend from Ohio that
this amendment would really, really move us in the right direction and
begin to make certain that people that are left out will now be in. I
think he would support that, so I am hoping that he will read it
quickly and then join the band.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I rise to take a strong stand to urge defeat of the previous
question. There is a lot of rhetoric about the digital divide, but no
one is really doing anything about it. We now have an opportunity to
back up our rhetoric with an investment in our future.
Specifically, there are proposals, one by my colleague, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Towns), which I support and one which I have
introduced which would say that yes, we ought to cut the excise tax,
but we ought to take a small portion of the excise tax and make an
investment in closing the digital divide.
Is the digital divide real? Absolutely. Consider a family making over
$75,000 is 20 times more likely to have a computer than a poor family.
{time} 1230
Consider that in public schools, wealthy school districts have a
ratio of seven students to one computer. Poor school districts have a
ratio of 16 students to one computer. We can do something about it by
taking a small portion of this tax and directing it not to the general
fund but to the specific purpose of bringing our young people into the
21st century by providing computers that can be used in schools, in
recreation centers, for training programs, for broad-band, for other
uses. We are making a sound investment in our future.
It is time that we eliminate the empty rhetoric about the digital
divide and really did something about it. This is our opportunity. I
hope my colleagues will defeat the previous question, allow the
substitute amendments to be considered by this body and allow us to
really work toward closing the digital divide that everyone is so happy
to talk about.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3916, the Telephone
Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2000. I am pleased to be an original co-
sponsor of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a tax whose time has come and it is time to be
repealed. It was started over 100 years ago, during the Spanish-
American War, to raise revenues; and it was started as, in effect, a
luxury tax when only 2 percent of Americans had telephone service.
I can remember as a boy some years ago being at my grandparents'
place up in east Texas, and they still used a party line, and people
did not have many phones. Well, today about 97 percent of Americans
have phone service in their home or they have cellular service, and
also now with the rise in the use of the Internet people are being
taxed there.
I think it is a little bit more simplistic than our colleague, the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, pointed out, that somehow this is
going to leverage an increasing boom in the high-tech market; but I
think it is very important that this is one of the first tax breaks
that we have seen come to the floor that is not a targeted tax break in
one direction or does not just benefit the top 2 percent of the people
with higher income. This is going to benefit the broad majority of
American citizens out there since most Americans have some form of
telephone service, some are on the Internet; but this is something that
is going to put money back in the pockets of working American families,
and that is why I cosponsored this bill. It is time to get rid of this
tax.
I do want to say to my colleague from New York, I think he raises a
very important issue, and his approach may well do more in trying to
deal with the digital divide, but underlying all of this it is time
that we repeal this tax and put some money back in the pockets of
working Americans and send this tax back to where it goes. We have
dealt with the deficit. We are not in a period of war, and so it is
time that we do away with it; and I urge my colleagues at the end of
the day, depending on what we do with the rule, to pass this bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because
it allows us to continue the pattern of fiscally irresponsible
legislation that will squander the budget surplus drip by drip. Once
again, we are being asked to waive the Budget Act in our rush to pass
politically popular and, I might add, common sense legislation without
regard for the consequences on our promises to retire the national debt
and on our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
I submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules that would have
[[Page H3835]]
added very modest protection to ensure that this legislation does not
jeopardize fiscal discipline. My amendment would allow the repeal of
the telephone excise tax to take effect so long as Congress and the
President maintain our course of fiscal discipline. Specifically, my
amendment would have made the implementation of the telephone excise
tax repeal contingent upon certification that Congress and the
President have taken actions to ensure that we are on a path to
eliminate the publicly held debt by 2013 and to protect the integrity
of Social Security and Medicare.
This amendment represents a common sense principle that should be
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. In fact, a bipartisan
majority of this House has already voted in favor of the provisions of
my amendment when we adopted the Shadegg amendment to H.R. 701, the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I agreed with many of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle when they argued during the debate on
CARA that they should make sure that we are on a course to pay off the
national debt and protect Social Security and Medicare before we spend
the surplus on a new program.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who agreed
with me on that principle when it applied to spending bills, why they
are not willing to even consider applying this principle to tax cuts?
If they believe that repeal of the telephone excise tax is more
important than eliminating the national debt and protecting the
integrity of Medicare and Social Security, vote for this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am here to applaud the Committee on Rules
for giving us the opportunity today on the floor of this House to have
the first, and given the way the Republican leadership runs this place,
perhaps the only vote in this new millennium on genuine campaign
finance reform. We are going to do that today through the motion to
recommit, because what has happened in American politics is more
distasteful than ever. It made a little fun of it last year in Roll
Call referring to the 527 loophole airbus. It is a giant loophole that
has been committed in our campaign finance laws, and now it is being
used to hammer people into giving huge contributions to political
organizations to conduct character assassination of people with hate
ads on the airwaves throughout this country.
One can hammer a person to give $100,000 or a million dollars after
they think they have gotten what they call fair treatment in this
House. What they can tell that person they are hammering is that no one
will be able to trace the money because they are going to run it
through something called a 527, a giant loophole in the campaign
finance laws. Some have referred to this loophole as the political
equivalent of a Swiss bank account, and we have already begun to see
how these 527 organizations operate. They operate in secret.
Common Cause has referred to them as stealth PACs. One leading
reformer in this country has said, this is the latest manifestation of
corruption in American politics. That is John McCain, and we are going
to put a stop to it today, at least in part, thanks to the Committee on
Rules providing for a motion to recommit.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, again, the focus here is 102 years, 102 years of a
temporary tax. I do not know about other Members here, but I can say
that people back home, when they get that phone bill and they have
difficulty understanding all those charges that appear and they ask
why, and we are forced to tell them, well, believe it or not 102 years
ago Congress passed a temporary tax. Now this Congress, I sense in a
bipartisan way, will do the right thing and repeal that unnecessary tax
that impacts every American family, and there may be people who have
and will come to the floor to defend it and that is their right; but
one has to ask themselves, I think, if we are not willing to repeal a
102-year-old temporary tax today, when we are enjoying the surplus
generated by the American people, then when will we do it?
So I applaud those who have introduced this legislation.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KLECZKA. As I looked over the history of this tax, I thought I
read that after the Spanish-American War this tax was repealed, and
then at the start of World War I it was put back on; repealed after
World War I; then it was put back on for World War II and then
broadened to include the entire phone bill and that is where we are
today. It is still around. Is that accurate?
Mr. FOSSELLA. The gentleman's point being that we should not repeal
it today?
Mr. KLECZKA. No. The point being that it is not 102 years old and
around since the Spanish-American War. It was repealed after that war
in 1902. So the gentleman is inaccurate on that point.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Reclaiming my time. So much for semantics. The
gentleman has every right to cast his vote to keep this tax alive, to
say to the American people that he wants to keep this tax alive. I, in
good measure and in good faith, say to the people of America that they
deserve a break.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for
allowing this motion to recommit on the issue of section 527 political
organizations, because this will be the first vote of the new year,
really the first vote of the new millennium, on the issue of campaign
finance reform.
Time and time again I hear the Republican leadership state that the
only way to fix our campaign finance system is through disclosure, but
it is very cynical and hypocritical that they make that claim when at
the same time they conduct themselves and their political cronies
through the auspices of these section 527 political organizations.
We have seen report after report of the Republican Party structure
creating and funding secret political organizations to funnel corporate
dollars to further the agenda of the extreme right. To do this, they
use section 527 of the Tax Code which allows the right wing to hide the
names of their donors and also hide how their money is spent.
What is particularly disturbing about this is that the Republican
leadership is allowing this cynicism to pervade the campaigns of their
new candidates throughout the country.
In my own reelection campaign in 1998, my Republican opponent used
one of these section 527 groups to funnel $5 million, I stress $5
million, in undisclosed and unaccountable dollars to malign me and try
to defeat me.
My campaign had a lot of success in tracking down the corporate
sources given to the group on our own. It was not disclosed, but we
were able to find out about some of them, and many of the corporate
CEOs whose corporations gave to these groups; and I spoke to them, had
no idea how their own dollars were being donated and spent because of
the lack of disclosure.
Two years after my campaign now, this same young Republican candidate
that I ran against has now moved to a new district in New Jersey and is
using these same methods in another run for the House, and here in the
Capitol I am reading news reports that Republican leaders of the
Congress are publicly pressuring lobbyists to donate to these same
secret groups.
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have a vote on the floor to repeal an
antiquated tax provision like the telephone excise tax. I am, in fact,
a co-sponsor of H.R. 3916. However, I also think it is equally
important to strip our Tax Code of these provisions which undermine our
political process and our electoral integrity, and I challenge the
Republican leadership, the self-described disciples of disclosure, they
keep talking about disclosure, to bring a bill to the floor to end the
abuses of section 527.
[[Page H3836]]
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder), and I thank the ranking member of the Committee
on Rules for the opportunity to be able to speak to the legislation and
the speed and expeditiousness of the Committee on Rules to bring this
to the floor. Let me thank them very much for their hard work,
realizing the work we had yesterday, the importance of their meeting to
get this done.
This is a great day for Americans, and this is a great day for Texans
and a great day for the constituents that I represent in the 18th
Congressional District. It is not often that we can come forward in a
bipartisan way to say to those who monthly and sometimes weekly,
depending on the structure they have for their telephone bill, to try
to look in the hidden print and find a small percentage of dollars that
are taken out of their hard-earned income; and we are now glad to say
today we pronounce with the passage of this legislation the opportunity
to return those dollars to them.
The removal of the telephone excise tax is a value to all Americans,
and because it was a tax that was indiscriminate and thereby reached
those hardest hit Americans who work every day to make ends meet, to
provide for their children, work at hourly wage jobs, of which we hope
to increase the minimum wage, this is, of course, a bounty and a much
appreciated repeal.
The key here is that this tax was even. No matter what one's income
was, it was an excise tax that one probably could not track as to what
it actually did, and I hope that as we repeal this tax we will also
give consideration to the idea of utilizing dollars to end the digital
divide. It is an area of interest, as a member of the Committee on
Science and Committee on the Judiciary dealing with H1B visas, that I
realize is key; but I think that this valuable repeal of the tax is one
that helps to give consumers right now a tax cut that they can
experience and appreciate, and I would hope that as we do this we would
realize that these random, undisclosed taxes, are ones that we can
repeal in a bipartisan manner.
I am gratified that this bill is on the floor, and I hope that it
will ultimately pass to give relief to all taxpayers in America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3961. This is a good bill that
would close the digital divide. I also support the Towns-Dingell
amendment that would reduce the telecommunications excise tax from 3%
to 1%, and would repeal the tax entirely--effective September 30, 2002.
This tax cut would give Americans over $1.5 billion more in tax relief
than they would get under H.R. 3961.
In addition, this amendment would dedicate the funds collected by
this tax for telecommunications projects to close the Digital Divide.
See--just as money is collected from gasoline taxes to improve our
Nation's highway infrastructure, money collected from the telephone
excise tax should be devoted to improving our telecommunications
infrastructure. For example, money in the Digital Bridge Trust Fund
could be used to fund grants and loan guarantees to accelerate private
sector deployment of broadband networks rural areas throughout the
United States. In addition, the projects may also include supporting
wireless high-speed Internet deployment to schools in underserved urban
areas like Houston. See--no matter the specific project, the revenue
generated from this telecommunications tax should be earmarked for
telecommunications projects and closing the digital divide, instead of
getting lost in the general revenue.
As you may know, Houston is home to over 1,000 technology companies
and NASA. In fact, there are many technology companies that have
developed due to the presence of the Johnson Space Center. Despite the
heavy concentration of technology companies in Houston, not all our
citizens are reaping the benefits of the digital economy. In fact, to
ensure that all in society participate in the 21st century economy, it
is imperative that information technology be accessible to all. Access
to computers and use of the Internet is necessary for one's full
participation in America's economic, political and social life. Today,
use of information technology is rapidly becoming a requisite skill for
employment, and the technology industry generally pays 80 percent more
than the average private sector job.
Like many other locales in our nation, the City of Houston is
experiencing a ``digital divide''--a gap between those individuals and
communities that have access and training in information technology and
those who do not. A defeat of the previous question and a vote on the
Towns-Dingell-Waters substitute will ensure that in this new
millennium, Congress is indeed serious about providing equal access to
technologies for all Americans.
In closing and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question and to make the Towns-Dingell-Waters amendment in
order.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this reform to the Tax Code, and I am pleased
that this motion to recommit will be the first vote on campaign finance
reform this year. The shadowy political hit squads being set up under
section 527 of the Tax Code should be required to disclose their
contributors. I agree with the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Delay), who during the campaign finance debate last year said, and
I quote, ``What reform can restore accountability more than an open
book?''
{time} 1245
So it is baffling why he opposes opening the books on these section
527 groups.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett) have legislation to require disclosure of these stealth
political groups. Good government demands that we approve that bill.
One section 527 organization is called Citizens for Better Medicare.
This is a front group set up by the pharmaceutical industry designed to
give the impression that regular citizens want to keep seniors' drug
prices as high to maintain the industries profit margins.
Here is how they work. Citizens for Better Medicare gathers the
database of names that it claims are concerned citizens and then sends
postcards on their behalf, often without their knowledge, to Congress
with the message that seniors do not deserve prescription drug
discounts.
Then they hire a telemarketing firm to make unsolicited phone calls
to these seniors to tell them why their drugs should not be cheaper and
then swiftly connect them to Members of Congress. This practice is
confusing and deceptive.
The latest telephone scheme by Citizens for Better Medicare is to
prey on children. A new web site, callyourgrandma.com, offers children
phone cards with 10 free minutes of long distance so they can call
their grandmother and explain why she does not deserve cheaper drugs.
The catch, the kid has to submit personal information, a name, address,
and phone number.
Developing a database of children to exploit and in order to justify
their discriminatory pricing practices, that is what the drug companies
are doing through Citizens for Better Medicare. I am pleased that we
are going to have a chance today to stop that practice.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit and
in support of the base bill. This motion to recommit would add to the
pending bill language requiring full disclosure by 527 organizations,
these 527 groups that collect secret money and never disclose who gave
or how much they gave.
Our system of government is based on openness, disclosure, and
accountability. Our system of government is threatened by secret money.
Nondisclosure allows special interest groups with unlimited funds to
bid for seats in Congress and to buy seats in Congress.
A patriot from Arizona who ran for President of United States this
year is a champion and a strong supporter of full disclosure.
This should not be a partisan issue. People on both sides of the
aisle should come to the support of this kind of responsive campaign
finance reform.
Mr. Speaker, we owe this to the American people.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
[[Page H3837]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give one of the examples of what our motion to
recommit will address. It is called Shape the Debate. This is the Web
page from Shape the Debate, one of these clandestine organizations
whose specialty is character assassination.
Shape the Debate advertises to those who might contribute $100,000,
$1 million or more. It advertises on the World Wide Web, so this can be
Iraqi money or Cuban money or Chinese money or just homegrown special
interest corporate treasury money, that the good thing about
contributing to Shape the Debate is that it will not disclose to anyone
who gave how much.
That is the beauty to those who have discovered the 527 loophole,
because their idea of shaping the debate is to do something that no one
else of any political persuasion is doing in America today, and that is
to use a secret stealth attack. The hitman can take the blood money to
engage in that character assassination and one never knows, one never
is able to trace the money.
That is why our Republican colleagues think they cannot control the
House in the future unless they rely on the money passing secretly by
stealth to these 527 committees that totally subvert the Federal
election laws.
We have called on them. I have called on them. The gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore) has called on them to join us in a bipartisan
correction of this loophole. At every opportunity, no matter how much
we had pled, they said, no, wait till next year. Wait until we have won
the next election by using character assassination with secret money
that no one will be able to trace. Wait till that happens, and maybe
next year we will think about doing something about it.
I think the American people want reform now. That is what this motion
to recommit is all about; it represents the first vote of the new
millennium on the floor of this House for campaign finance reform.
Despite the efforts of this Committee on Rules at every turn to block
us from discussing campaign reform, despite the fact that the use of
527 secretly funded ads has been called another example of corruption
in American politics by John McCain, the Republican leadership has
blocked us from considering reform. Today, finally we have a tiny
opening to do what is right for the American people by beginning to
clean up this mess.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will have to confess, when he started talking about
all that Chinese money, I thought he was showing us President Clinton's
1996 disclosure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to make in order two substitutes. The Towns substitute phases out
the telecommunications excise tax more quickly than the underlying bill
and sets aside the proceeds in a Digital Bridge Trust fund.
The Wynn substitute also sets aside the revenues to fund various
programs to overcome the digital divide.
If the previous question is defeated, Members will have the
opportunity to vote up or down on those proposals.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment to the resolution and extraneous materials into the
Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question
so that we may debate all the issues.
Mr. Speaker, I include the amendment to the resolution and extraneous
material that I referred to earlier, as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 511, the Rule Providing for Consideration of H.R.
3916, to Repeal the Telephone Excise Tax
On page 2, line 7, after ``Ways and Means;'' strike ``and
(2)'' and add the following:
``(2) without intervention of any point of order, one hour
of debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in section 2 of this resolution to be offered by
Representative Towns of New York, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; (3) without
intervention of any point of order, one hour of debate on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in section 3
of this resolution to be offered by Representative Wynn of
Maryland, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent; and (4)''
On page 2, after line 8, add the following:
Section 2.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3916, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Towns of New York, Ms. Waters of California, or Mr.
Dingell of Michigan
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS EXCISE TAX.
(a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to facilities and services) is amended by
striking subchapter B.
(b) Phase-out of Tax.--Paragraph (2) of section 4251(b) of
such Code (defining applicable percentage) is amended to read
as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage.--The term `applicable
percentage' means 1 percent with respect to amounts paid
pursuant to bills first rendered on or after the 30th day
after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph and
before October 1, 2002.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking
``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064
and 4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' and inserting
``and chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections
4064 and 4121),''.
(2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is
amended by striking ``section 4251 or''.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is
amended--
(i) by striking ``imposed by--'' and all that follows
through ``with respect to'' and inserting ``imposed by
section 4261 or 4271 with respect to'', and
(ii) by striking ``bills rendered or''.
(C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) of such Code
is amended by striking ``Communications Services and''.
(3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking
``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting
``4261 or 4271''.
(4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
by striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating
subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is
amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Repeal.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (c)
shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered
after September 30, 2002.
(2) Phase-out.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall
apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered on or
after the 30th day after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 2. DIGITAL BRIDGE TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--The National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Organization Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating part C as part D; and
(2) by inserting after part B (47 U.S.C. 921 et seq.) the
following new part:
``PART C--DIGITAL BRIDGE TRUST FUND
``SEC. 131. TRUST FUND.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
of the United States a trust fund to be known as the Digital
Bridge Trust Fund, consisting of such amounts as may be
appropriated or credited pursuant to subsection (b) or (d).
``(b) Transfer of Amounts Equivalent to Certain Taxes.--
There are hereby appropriated to the Digital Bridge Trust
Fund amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the taxes received
in the Treasury under section 4251 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to tax on communications) pursuant to
bills first rendered on or after the 30th day after the date
of the enactment of this part.
``(c) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Digital Bridge Trust
Fund may be made available only for the benefit of rural and
urban areas, and Native Americans, in a manner that targets
such assistance for areas, communities, and populations
(including low-income families and individuals) that are
underserved with respect to information technology needs,
employment, and education, and only in accordance with
provisions of law enacted after the date of the enactment of
this section that provide for the availability of such
amounts.
``(d) Treatment as Trust Fund.--For purposes of subchapter
B of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the
Digital Bridge Trust Fund shall be considered to be a trust
fund established by subchapter A of such chapter.''.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3916, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Wynn of Maryland
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
[[Page H3838]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Computers in Our Community
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) There is a growing gap, commonly referred to as the
digital divide, between individuals who have access to
computers and the Internet and individuals who do not have
such access.
(2) Households with incomes of $75,000 or greater are more
than 20 times more likely to have access to the Internet, and
more than 9 times more likely to have a computer at home,
than households with the lowest income levels.
(3) Although 58.9 percent of Americans earning over $75,000
annually frequently use the Internet, only 16 percent of
Americans earning between $5,000 and $10,000 annually use the
Internet.
(4) Black and Hispanic households are \2/5\ as likely to
have home Internet access as white households.
(5) The digital divide is an emergency that will
detrimentally affect the economy and society of the Nation
absent immediate corrective action.
(6) The e-rate program of the Federal Communications
Commission ensures that schools and libraries receive
telecommunications services at a discounted rate. Although
tremendously successful, this program is insufficient because
there is twice the demand for funding as there is funding
available.
(7) According to statistics by the Department of Education,
there is a dire need for additional computers in some
schools. Schools with the highest concentrations of poverty
had an average of 16 students per instructional computer with
Internet access, compared to 7 students for each such
computer in schools with the lowest concentrations of
poverty.
(8) The computer industry is the fastest growing industry
in our country. There is a documented shortage of information
technology workers. Increasingly, workers in all fields of
employment will need to be computer literate. Ensuring that
classrooms have computers that are used effectively to teach
students will help meet this need.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZATION ACT.
The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating part C as part D; and
(2) by inserting after part B the following new part:
``PART C--COMPUTERS IN OUR COMMUNITY PROGRAM
``SEC. 131. PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this part to establish programs to
advance the computer skills of American workers in the global
economy and to use computer technology to advance the general
educational performance of American students.
``SEC. 132. STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Program Authority.--From 85 percent of the amount
made available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the
Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall make
grants to each participating State educational agency for
allocation among local educational agencies in such State.
``(b) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) State allocations.--The Secretary shall allocate to
each participating State educational agency an amount that
bears the same ratio to such 85 percent of the amount made
available under section 137 for a fiscal year as the total
amount allocated to such State educational agency under title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for
such fiscal year bears to the total amount allocated to all
such participating State educational agencies under such
title I for such fiscal year.
``(2) Local allocations.--Each participating State
educational agency shall allocate to each participating local
educational agency an amount that bears the same ratio to the
amount allocated to such State for a fiscal year as the total
amount allocated to such local educational agency under title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for
such fiscal year bears to the total amount allocated to all
such participating local educational agencies in such State
under such title I for such fiscal year.
``(c) Eligibility.--
``(1) Participating state educational agencies.--In order
to qualify as a participating State educational agency for
purposes of this section, a State educational agency shall
create or modify and submit to the Secretary a technology
plan that--
``(A) identifies the current ratio of students to computers
in each school district in the State, and specifies the
Internet connectivity of the computer systems in such
districts; and
``(B) complies with such other criteria as the Secretary,
in conjunction with the Secretary of Education, shall
prescribe to assure that the funds provided under this
section are being used properly in schools to advance the use
of technology to effectively teach students computer skills
and improve the general educational performance of students.
``(2) Participating local educational agencies.--In order
to qualify as a participating local educational agency for
purposes of this section, a local educational agency shall
create or modify and submit to the State educational agency a
technology plan that proves such local educational agency is
meeting the goals of the technology plan of the State
educational agency.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Funds provided under this section may
be used for the following:
``(1) The purchase of computers that meet a minimum
standard as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) The electrical wiring that schools may require to
connect computers to each other and to the Internet.
``(3) Hiring technological assistants to ensure that each
school has access to a trained computer professional to
provide technology training for teachers and perform
maintenance of computer systems. A maximum of 1 technological
assistant per 5 elementary schools, 1 technological assistant
per 3 middle schools, and 1 technological assistant per 2
high schools may be paid for with such funds.
``SEC. 133. DIGITAL DIVIDE WORKFORCE TRAINING INITIATIVE.
``(a) Program Authority.--From 5 percent of the amount made
available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the
Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall
carry out a program to award grants, on a competitive basis,
to nonprofit organizations for the establishment of job
training programs for preparing individuals for computer and
technology related jobs.
``(b) Criteria.--The Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Labor, shall establish the criteria for
administering the grants under this section, which shall
include the following:
``(1) Grants under this section shall be for 2 years.
``(2) Grant applicants shall serve low income individuals,
as such term is defined in section 101 of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801).
``(3) Grant applicants may submit an application under this
section only after consulting with the appropriate local
workforce investment board under such Act, and obtaining a
favorable recommendation of the application by such board.
``(c) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to applications that--
``(1) are submitted by nonprofit organizations that have
experience in providing technological training;
``(2) propose job training programs that will serve
individuals most in need of computer and technology training,
as determined by the Secretary; and
``(3) provide flexibility in training in order to
accommodate a greater number of individuals.
``(d) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, an
applicant shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Labor, may reasonably prescribe. Each such
application shall provide a system for tracking the
employment success of individuals who attend any proposed job
training program.
``(e) Follow-up.--The Secretary shall review the success of
the program under this section and submit a report to
Congress thereon not later than 2 years after amounts are
first available for implementation of the program.
``SEC. 134. COMMUNITY CENTERS AND LIBRARIES TECHNOLOGY ACCESS
GRANTS.
``(a) Program Authority.--From 5 percent of the amount made
available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the
Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall
carry out a program to award grants, on a competitive basis,
to provide assistance to community centers and libraries to
provide greater access to, instruction on, and assistance
with computers and the Internet
``(b) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish the criteria
for administering the grants under this section, which shall
include the following:
``(1) Any entity requesting funds under this section shall
provide such assurances as the Secretary may require to
demonstrate that the entity will provide, from other sources
(which may include contributions from State or local
government), an equal amount of funds for carrying out the
purposes of the grant.
``(2) Eligible recipients of grants under this section
shall be community centers that receive Federal, State, or
local government funding, public libraries, and nonprofit
organizations working in conjunction with such centers and
libraries.
``(3) Each recipient of grant funds under this section
shall use such funds to establish a program for providing
greater access to, instruction on, and assistance with
computers and the Internet.
``(4) Grants under this section shall be for 3 years.
``(c) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to applications that
demonstrate that the program for which funds are sought--
``(1) will be able to sustain funding in the absence of
Federal funding; and
``(2) will serve areas with a low rate of access to
computers and the Internet.
``(d) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, an
applicant shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may reasonably prescribe. Each
such application shall include--
[[Page H3839]]
``(1) a description of the proposed program, including how
the program would will make technology available to areas
with a low rate of access to computers and the Internet;
``(2) a demonstration of the need for computers and access
to the Internet in the area to be served; and
``(3) a description of the type technology that will be
provided.
``SEC. 135. COMPUTER CURRICULUM PARTNERSHIP.
``(a) Program Authority.--From 5 percent of the amount made
available under section 137 for any fiscal year, the
Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall
carry out a program to award grants, on a competitive basis,
to institutions of higher education that create successful
partnerships between their education and computer departments
to create software or Internet applications--
``(1) to train teachers in using computers, and using
computers to teach students; or
``(2) to use in the classroom to teach students.
``(b) Criteria.--The Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Education, shall establish the criteria for
administering the grants under this section. Such criteria
shall include priorities for awarding funds under this
section--
``(1) based on the need of the schools being served and
their educational priorities; and
``(2) giving preference to those applicants that will
operate their programs in conjunction with local educational
agencies.
``(c) Clearinghouse.--The Secretary shall, in conjunction
with the Secretary of Education, develop a clearinghouse to
make available information derived from the activities of
recipients of funds under this section to other schools
throughout the United States.
``(d) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, an
applicant shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Education, may reasonably prescribe. Each
application shall include a description of the format of the
software or Internet applications to be created.
``SEC. 136. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
``Of amounts available to carry out a program to award
grants under each of sections 133, 134, and 135, the
Secretary may not use more than 1 percent to pay
administration costs under that section.
``SEC. 137. REGULATIONS.
``The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out this part.
``SEC. 138. APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part for any fiscal year an amount not to exceed the amount
deposited to the Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund for
such fiscal year pursuant to section 9511 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
``SEC. 139. DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this part--
``(1) the terms `State educational agency' and `local
educational agency' have the meanings provided such terms in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965; and
``(2) the term `institution of higher education' has the
meaning provided such term in section 102 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.''.
SEC. 4. COMPUTERS IN OUR COMMUNITIES TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section
9510 the following:
``SEC. 9511. COMPUTERS IN OUR COMMUNITIES TRUST FUND.
``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund', consisting of such
amounts as may be appropriated or credited pursuant to this
section or section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfer to Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund
Amounts Equivalent to Certain Taxes.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund
amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the taxes received in
the Treasury after September 30, 2000, under section 4251
(relating to tax on communications).
``(c) Expenditures From Computers in Our Communities Trust
Fund.--Amounts in the Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund
shall be available for making appropriations to carry out the
provisions of part C of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Organization Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
``Sec. 9511. Computers in Our Communities Trust Fund.''
SEC. 5. REDUCTION OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 4251(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage.--The term `applicable
percentage' means 1 percent.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered
after September 30, 2000.
Amend the title so as to read: ``To amend the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act to establish a program to distribute funds
to State educational agencies to advance the use of
technology to effectively teach our students computer skills
and improve the general educational performance of students,
and for other purposes.''.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
resolution and also on agreeing to House Concurrent Resolution 331
postponed from yesterday on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 201, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 229]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
[[Page H3840]]
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Bateman
Becerra
Clyburn
Coburn
Hilliard
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy
McInnis
Minge
Scarborough
Spence
Weiner
{time} 1312
Messrs. MOAKLEY, SPRATT, ROEMER, CUMMINGS and NEAL of Massachusetts
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette.) The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 404,
noes 15, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--404
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--15
Berry
Dingell
Engel
Hinchey
Klink
Markey
Meeks (NY)
Obey
Owens
Stenholm
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Waters
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Bateman
Becerra
Clyburn
Coburn
Hilliard
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy
McInnis
Meek (FL)
Minge
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Spence
Taylor (NC)
Weiner
{time} 1321
Mr. BERRY and Mr. MARKEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________