[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3842-H3854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX REPEAL ACT
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 511, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3916) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
repeal the excise tax on telephone and other communication services,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3916 is as follows:
H.R. 3916
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to facilities and services) is amended by
striking subchapter B.
(b) 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.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered
more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of H.R. 3916, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3916
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
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--
``(A) 2 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,
2001, and
``(B) 1 percent with respect to amounts paid pursuant to
bills first rendered after September 30, 2001, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
General Leave
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous matter on H.R. 3916.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today Congress will vote to repeal the 102-year-old
Federal excise tax on telecommunications services. This is a bipartisan
bill introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). It repeals an excise tax which
is regressive and hits low-income families and people on fixed incomes
like older Americans the hardest and it is a tax that has truly
outlived its usefulness. The telephone tax is a showcase example of bad
tax policy and its endurance over the century proves again that once
the Government gets its hands on the taxpayers' money, it is hard to
get it back to the people.
In addition to helping people today, repealing this tax will help
avoid a potentially big tax increase in the future. It used to be that
each household had only one phone, and that was it. But today homes
have at least one phone line, many have two. Mom and Dad and maybe one
of the kids has a cell phone or a pager, and the family might have a
computer and use e-mail. So they are paying this tax on a number of
telecommunications services, not just on their one telephone anymore.
The point is, as more Americans use more and more telecommunications
services, this tax must surely not continue to grow. That is why I am
pleased that we are taking this action today to repeal a tax first
levied in 1898. As the old saying goes, Better late than never.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
First I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding
to me and allowing me to manage this bill. I would like to commend the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the committee, for
bringing this bill up in an expeditious fashion.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas has mentioned, this tax is a
tax that should have been repealed years ago. It started in 1898 to
actually pay for the Spanish-American war. It had been repealed and
reinstated numerous times over those years, but the fact of the matter
is this tax is a tax on telephone service communications between
Americans.
When it was first instituted in 1898, 102 years ago, there were,
believe it or not, 1,356 telephones in America. It was clearly a luxury
tax. It was a method that very wealthy people used to communicate with
each other probably more as a novelty than as a real source of
communication. The fact of the matter is today that 94 percent of the
American public of 270 million people now use telephones. Now they pay
a 3 percent tax. As we know, this tax hits across everybody, low-income
people, moderate-income people, the rich; but everybody pays the same
percentage. This is probably one of the most regressive taxes that the
Federal Government has. It should be repealed, particularly in a time
of surpluses.
I might also mention that there is another aspect of this as well. As
we know, we have numerous different modes of communication in America
and throughout the world today. We have the Internet, we have cable
modems and everything else. At this time the IRS and the Treasury
Department is having a very difficult time on how to apply this tax.
Some can use the Internet with cable modems to avoid the tax, and
others who use the basic telephone service end up paying the tax. As we
know, average low-income Americans are the ones that do not have access
to the Internet. And so again this tax is even more regressive,
[[Page H3843]]
given the fact that many Americans cannot afford the new technology
that we have. This tax is currently at approximately over a 5-year
period $20 billion. This is not just a small amount. This is a very
large tax on American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, this tax needs to be repealed. I urge my colleagues to
vote yes on this repeal effort.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding me this time. I salute my colleague from Ohio and my colleague
across the aisle from California for bringing this forward. Credit is
also due to a new Member of our institution, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gary Miller), who brought this to our attention last
year.
As the chairman of our committee pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is an
object lesson on tax policy in our constitutional Republic. One is
almost tempted, Mr. Speaker, to return to my profession of
broadcasting, ``This bulletin just in. The Spanish-American war is
over. We won. But in the process American consumers lost.''
As my colleague from California correctly points out, this has been a
stop-start, on-again off-again procedure. Yet it is compelling because
it was a tax levied for the most noble of purposes over a century ago;
but it has stayed around and, far from a luxury, we know today the
telephone is a necessity. We know today that as we live in the
information age, as we depend on computers more and more, information
so vital to our everyday lives need not be taxed. Especially egregious,
these funds from this luxury tax are not even devoted to the
telecommunications process. No, they go into the general fund.
And so it is long overdue that we repeal this Spanish-American War
telephone tax, this tax on talking; and in much the same way, we need
to continue our review and one day reform our overall tax policy
because historians note that the current taxation on personal income
made possible by the 16th amendment to our Constitution was
preconditioned through judicial review on the notion that it is
temporary.
Well, today the temporary century-plus telephone tax will be
repealed. Again, as we congratulate each other in a bipartisan fashion,
Mr. Speaker, the American people ask, What took you so long? We are
finally getting the work done for the people.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am really tickled pink to have the opportunity to come
down here and talk about this repeal of the phone tax. As was
indicated, this repeal will cost some $20 billion to the treasury, or
putting it another way, Americans will be saving $20 billion over a 5-
year period. To put that into perspective, the President has
recommended this Congress pass a drug benefit for the senior citizens
on Medicare. The 5-year cost of that is $40 billion. But my Republican
colleagues do not support that so we probably will not do it for the
seniors; but this phone repeal could fund one-half of that Medicare
drug benefit for seniors, just to put it into perspective.
Now, I guess people are going to ask, what is this worth to me? I
have a copy of a phone bill here from the State of Virginia from the
Bell Atlantic Phone Company. This is for the other services and
charges. If I could direct Members' attention to number seven, it is
tax and Federal, the savings to the consumer here, 97 cents. People ask
me, where did this idea come from to repeal the tax? Clearly the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) introduced a bill, but we also
had an advisory commission established by Congress to look at the
Internet tax.
{time} 1345
It was headed up by the governor of the State of Virginia, Governor
Gilmore. His colleagues not only wanted to put a moratorium on Internet
tax, but they also had this real thing about the Federal phone tax.
They pushed and shoved, and part of the recommendation to Congress was
to repeal this 97 cent tax here.
As I look at this bill, Governor Gilmore, my eyes dropped to the next
line, and that is the State sales tax on your phone bill. That is
$7.00, 700 percent more, and I do not recall the governor saying
anything about knocking that down, but he is so gracious to help us out
by eliminating this 97 cents on the phone bill.
I just read in the Post today that Governor Gilmore wants the
taxpayers of the country to give him another half a billion dollars to
rebuild the Wilson Bridge, which is in part Virginia and in part
Maryland. I say we could sure help him out if we had this $20 billion,
but we have to give that back. But the point here is the consumers by
our action today are going to save 97 cents on this phone bill, but we
are not doing anything about the $7 tax going to Richmond.
So this is a great day. We are really going to do something for the
consumers. Massive tax relief. Great day.
I have got some bad news. Bell Atlantic, same company, sent out a
letter, and they sent out the letter to the phone people, to those who
use their telephone, and they say, hey, important notice, folks.
Optional wire maintenance price plan increase. What is that? Well, for
the phone wire inside your house, these folks are currently paying
$1.25 a month. The phone company is telling them, effective June 17 of
this year, we are going to increase that almost 100 percent to $2.45,
$1.20 a month.
But, wait a minute. We just saved 97 cents, and the phone company
took it away. Before we got the savings, this phone company took it
away. So right now, as we stand here, we are 23 cents in the hole,
because after we give you this phone tax relief, your bill is going to
go up 23 percent anyway.
So now I am thinking, my gosh, how are we going to help the consumer
out? Well, I came up with a couple of ideas. It is going to cost some
money to change the Tax Code. There will be some administrative costs
once this bill is signed into law. I am thinking of producing an
amendment today to amend the bill, and instead of sending the 97 cents
back to the consumers, send the $20 billion to the phone company. My
friends, they are going to get it anyway.
The other idea is to move the previous question, which means cut off
all the debate, because the longer we sit here today and talk about
this, the less the consumers are going to save.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my friend from Wisconsin has pointed
out some other potential targets. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress will
not be able to do much about it. Maybe some State legislators from
Virginia were watching, maybe some of our regulators downtown were
watching from the FCC, and maybe even some members of the Committee on
Commerce are here.
But I know that it is very important to most Members of this Chamber
that we go ahead and reduce that 97 cents, which is $6 billion a year
on the consumers of this country; and regardless of what States may do
or what other regulations may require, I am delighted that this has
been, from the start, an effort that has been supported broadly on a
bipartisan basis.
I want to point out the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) in
particular. He is my partner on this legislation, has been from the
start. He makes some very good points every time he speaks on this
issue. He just made them previously about the difficulty we are having
at the IRS right now even identifying what is a telephone tax and what
is not, given the emerging technologies and given the very fast pace of
change out there.
The gentleman also has talked, I know, about the history of this
legislation. I do not want to go over all of it, but I hope people
understand that this was a temporary luxury tax put in place during the
Spanish-American War to pay for that war at a time when very few
Americans had telephones, only the wealthiest of Americans. This
temporary luxury tax, which was put in place at a time when the country
was just being introduced to the glamorous young war hero, Teddy
Roosevelt, has lived on. It has gone up, it has gone down, it has gone
all around.
[[Page H3844]]
But it is a classic example of a tax in Washington that just will not
die, and in this case a temporary tax on a luxury item that is no
longer a luxury item, rather something all of us use every day in our
lives and is clearly a catalyst to the economic growth we are all
enjoying.
So at a time of prosperity, at a time when we can look out to the
future with budget surpluses projected, and have the luxury of looking
at our Tax Code, what makes sense and what does not, this should be for
this Congress a target for repeal.
It is a 3 percent Federal excise tax; you will see it on your phone
bill. Sometimes it is called FET. Look at the bottom of that bill, if
you can look past all the other charges and so on that the gentleman
from Wisconsin talked about. This is one this Congress can do something
about and should do today.
From a tax policy perspective, there are number of reasons why this
does not make sense, in addition to the fact that it is no longer
necessary, since the Spanish-American War is 102 years ago. One is it
is regressive. Lower-income families, of course, pay a higher
percentage of their family budget than most Americans do on the
telephone use. Everybody has a phone. Ninety-four percent of American
families have it. Seniors are particularly hard hit by this on fixed
incomes who need the telephone as a lifeline to the outside world.
Second, unlike other Federal excise taxes that go for some specific
purpose, this simply goes into general revenues. The gas tax is a
Federal excise tax, but it goes to fix our roads and our bridges. We
also have Federal excise taxes on sin, being the sin taxes, so-called
sin taxes, on alcohol and cigarettes.
But this is something that we should not be discouraging, telephone
use. In fact, just the opposite. We should be encouraging it, again,
because it is such a fundamental driver in the economic prosperity we
now enjoy.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this is anti-Internet, having
this tax in place, anti-telecommunications, at a time when that ought
to be encouraged. Ninety-six percent of Internet goes over phone lines.
So at the very end of the day, all I can say is this is a great
example where the Congress gets together, reflects on our Tax Code,
what makes sense, what does not, comes together on a bipartisan basis,
making it bipartisan from the very start, then brings it to the floor
in a bipartisan way, to send a strong message to the United States
Senate, which sometimes needs a strong message, and to the President,
because I hope it will end up on his desk, hope it will happen in the
next month. I hope it will happen before we go out of session certainly
this year, so we will be able to give our consumers a little break and
help our economy and get rid of this, again, outdated part of our Tax
Code. The Spanish-American War is long over, but in the 21st century,
the telecommunications revolution is very much on. We need to assist
that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
California, the original Democrat sponsor of this bill, for yielding me
time.
As a cosponsor of H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act, I
am proud to not only support it, but also be a cosponsor. It adds $6
billion annually to our bills and about $2.00 a month to our
constituents' phone bills.
While this tax was created to fund the Spanish-American War and has
been reinstituted during different conflicts, telephones were a luxury.
Well, that is not the case anymore. In fact, it has long since not been
a luxury. So this regressive tax should be repealed.
This is a broad tax cut that I think a lot of us can support, and
that is why you have a broad number of Members that are cosponsoring
it. It covers everyone, but particularly it covers senior citizens in
my own district who can see when their bill comes in after this is
effective, their Federal tax will be reduced.
I do share with my colleague from Wisconsin the concern about whether
their regular phone bill will be increased, but hopefully they will
deal with their State legislature and their regulation on that. The
only funds that should be collected from the telecommunications device
should be the digital divide.
I am also glad we are having a motion to recommit to close the 527
loophole that requires 527s to be able to list who is giving to them
and how they are spending their money.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my colleague on the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his efforts as well as those of the gentleman from
California to move forward to repeal this fantastically antiquated tax.
Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity in visiting Egypt for the
first time to do something that every archeology buff wants to do, and
that is visit the pyramids. As I descended into the bowels of the great
pyramid of Cheops, I developed a fresh appreciation for the ancient
Egyptian belief in resurrection.
Mr. Speaker, as we move to inter this tax finally, we are looking at
a provision in the Tax Code that would reaffirm the beliefs of the Old
Kingdom in resurrection. This tax was first introduced in 1898, before
income taxes were levied. It was designed as a temporary tax to pay for
the Spanish-American War, as the last speaker noted. Since then, this
tax has been repeatedly resurrected by Congress to no end.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of repealing this outdated tax on our most
basic communications. In my home State of Pennsylvania, this would mean
$245 million in tax relief, with $75 million of that going to families
who earn less than $30,000. The time has long passed to eliminate this
regressive tax on the American people and on small business.
For the first time in decades, with the Federal Government running a
budget surplus, it is particularly perverse to continue this tax on
talking when telecommunications play such a vital role in the
information superhighway. The revenues from this tax, as the last
speaker noted, are not even earmarked to support telecommunications
infrastructure. It goes to the general treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge every one of my colleagues to vote for this
bill, and, in doing so, vote for tax fairness, for tax relief, and for
easier Internet access. I urge the passage of the legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
motion to be offered by my good friend and colleague on the Committee
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the motion
to recommit. It simply says that section 527 political organizations
will not get the benefit of the telephone excise tax repeal unless they
disclose their donors. It is that simple.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) had tried to offer this
amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means twice, once today and once
during the debate on the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. Both times, the
Republicans have voted it down and blocked it from coming to the floor.
Every person in America realized the importance and necessity of
fixing our system of financing elections. The Doggett amendment is an
attempt, but an important attempt, a necessary attempt, to bring about
campaign finance reform. It will close another loophole in campaign
finance disclosure laws. It will clean up the mess created by section
527 political organizations. These organizations can take unlimited
money from almost any source, even foreign money, and make expenditures
without any disclosure to anyone. It is a sham, it is a shame, and it
is a disgrace. The American people deserve better.
The Doggett amendment only requires simple open disclosure by these
organizations, these 527 organizations. The American people have a
right to know. They have a right to know who is funding political
campaigns in our country. They have a right to know who is behind the
attack ads. The American people have a right to a free and fair
election process.
[[Page H3845]]
There is already too much money in the political process. There is no
room for secrecy too. We need to fix the mess. I urge my colleagues to
support the motion to recommit.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my slow-talking, fast-
thinking friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
{time} 1400
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, when Theodore Roosevelt issued the order to charge, he
was referring to the Rough Riders and ordered them towards San Juan
Hill. Well, evidently the Congress heard the order of charge at the
same time, and they implemented this 3 percent luxury tax on those at
that time who had a telephone. Well, that time in Congress and Theodore
Roosevelt have passed, the Spanish American War is over, and it is time
that we cease charging, charging the American people this ridiculous
tax on their telephones.
The charge was to pay for the war. The war had a cost of about $250
billion. Today, we are collecting better than 20 times the cost of that
war each year. This is just another example of excessive taxation, but
Congress too is responsible for the excessive taxation because of our
excessive spending habits. But it is an excessive cost to families and
to business. At a time that we have a savings rate that is negative in
this country, at a time that we are trying to encourage investments,
and at a time when we are trying to compete in a global market, it is
time for us to repeal and/or change tax provisions that will assist
families and business.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this charge. The war is over. Let us
sunset this tax.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask rhetorically one
question on this issue: why would anybody not want to repeal this tax?
And then I thought about it and I came to the conclusion, with 4
teenage children, maybe I am wrong. Do we really want to encourage them
to stay on the phone longer? But even after that, I have come down on
the side of repeal, primarily because changing technology, as the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has pointed out, will make the
collection of this tax more and more difficult and digital technology
will continue to blur the lines between audio, video, and tech
transmissions. In the coming era, we will ask ourselves what will
define telephone service. It is a bad tax, and we have an opportunity
to get rid of it.
Mr. Speaker, let me shift gears for a second to stand in support of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) who is going to speak in a few
minutes. In the late 1960s and the early 1970s after Watergate, the
American people recoiled in their anger at the idea that in the
basement of the White House there were suitcases full of cash,
unacknowledged by the donors, and we are headed down the road to that
same practice unless we do something about the idea of disclosing who
gives what.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is right on target, and to my
friends on the Republican side and my colleagues on the Democratic
side, these groups are bipartisan political assassins. We should know
where their money comes from. The idea of disclosure was that it would
be a disinfectant to campaign money. People would have an opportunity
to examine where the money originated, for what purpose it was given,
and then they would cast their decision.
Well, we know now that there are independent expenditures that are
made against many Members of this Congress, not only on issues, but
just as importantly, directed at the candidates. The public should know
who gives the money.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saluting the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), my
friends, for offering this legislation, legislation that is so
important. Let me begin by just sharing a couple of statistics that
illustrate why it is so important.
Today, there are 100 million U.S. adults using the Internet. There
are seven new Internet users every second. Think about that, seven new
Internet users every second, more millions of families in America. Of
course, school kids at home use the Internet as a way of doing their
homework, accessing the Library of Congress.
Today, we are responding to a pretty important question and that
question is, do we want the information superhighway to be a toll way
or a freeway. I believe, of course, that we want it to be a freeway.
Today we are voting to remove one of those toll booths on the
information superhighway by voting to repeal the telephone excise tax.
Mr. Speaker, when we think about and look at who has Internet access
at home, the higher their income, the more likely they have it.
Families with incomes of $75,000 or more are 20 times more likely to
have Internet access. If we ask those with low or moderate means why
they do not have Internet access, they tell us it is because of the
cost, that the cost is the barrier which denies their children the
opportunity to use the Internet for school work. Today, we are
eliminating one of those barriers.
I think it is important to note that 96 percent of those who access
the Internet use their telephone line, so by lowering the cost of
telephone use, we are increasing digital opportunity for millions of
Americans.
I am proud of the leadership this House has shown in creating more
digital opportunity and eliminating that so-called digital divide. Just
a few weeks ago, we passed a 5-year extension of the Internet tax
moratorium that specifically prohibited new fees and taxes on Internet
access at the State and local level. Just 2 weeks ago, we passed
legislation which cut off at the pass the FCC's authority to impose new
fees and taxes by the FCC; and I am proud to say that today, we are
going to eliminate the telephone excise tax, one of those toll booths.
So we are removing three toll booths on the information superhighway
with this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, let us remove those toll booths
on the information superhighway. Let us do the right thing. This bill
has bipartisan support. Let us send it with a strong vote to the
Senate. Let us create digital opportunity by lowering cost to access
the Internet. By eliminating the telephone excise tax, we lower the
cost, we remove a toll booth, we increase digital opportunity, and we
are going to help millions of Americans gain the opportunity to join
the information superhighway.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that
will repeal the 3 percent telephone Federal excise tax. The tax should
be repealed, it has outlived its use, it passed originally, as has been
stated by several colleagues as a luxury tax. Virtually every home in
America now has a telephone, even those that can afford very few
luxuries.
Indeed, the tax was first passed a century ago when the telephone was
a new and simple device. Today, at the dawn of another century,
telecommunications has changed so much that it is impossible to apply
the tax even fairly. If consumers use a telephone line to access the
Internet, they will pay this tax. If they use a cable modem, they will
not. Furthermore, how does this tax apply to new delivery systems? Will
people who use delivery systems like DSL be taxed when they use DSL for
telephoning, but not be taxed when they use the Internet?
I think our responsibilities include repealing old, outmoded laws and
also make it possible for our constituents to enjoy new advancements in
technology. This legislation does both.
In the recommittal, I urge my colleagues to vote for disclosure. The
American people deserve it, they deserve the right to know. None of us
can brag that this campaign finance system is something that is good
for the country. Vote for disclosure.
[[Page H3846]]
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Republican Policy
Committee.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman) for the extraordinary work that he has done in a
bipartisan fashion to bring this legislation to the floor. I am pleased
to join with him and the rest of my Republican and Democratic
colleagues today in support of this legislation to repeal the Spanish
American war tax. It is no longer a luxury tax. It is not fair; it is
extremely regressive. The reason for its enactment, to fund the war
with Spain, no longer exists.
In preparing for this debate, I did some research into the genesis of
this tax. I went to the report issued on April 26, 1898, 102 years ago,
in the Committee on Ways and Means, and I found that the author of this
bill, a Representative Dingley, not Dingell from Michigan, not my good
friend and colleague who is the dean of the House, because even he has
not been here anywhere near that long, but a Representative Dingley who
said about his bill which was entitled, Revenue to Meet War
Expenditures, ``All of these additional taxes are war taxes which would
naturally be repealed or modified when the necessities of war and the
payment of war expenses have ceased.''
Well, I think we can all agree today that that time has come, 102
years later. This tax was created over a century ago to pay for a war
in which the father of General Douglas MacArthur, a commander of note
in his own right, capped his career. Some years later, a half century
ago, his son stood here in this chamber and told us in one of the most
memorable addresses ever given in this Chamber, that old soldiers never
die, they just fade away. But this old tax will neither die nor fade
away. So today, more than a century after Spain and the United States
signed a treaty of peace in Paris, we need to invoke the memory of
those rough riders who charged up San Juan Hill and mount a charge on
this unnecessary and unfair confiscation, run a bayonet through it, and
kill it.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the act to repeal the
telephone excise tax, but I am rising now in support of the motion of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) to recommit, because we need to
make the public aware of section 527.
So-called 527 groups are tax-exempt, political organizations that try
to influence elections. They can spend millions of dollars on negative
ads, direct-mail campaigns, and phone banks. Not too long ago, I had
never even heard of section 527s of the IRS code. Now, our constituents
face the possibility of a negative ad campaign streaming into their
homes paid for by undisclosed, far-off donors, distorting their
elections.
Mr. Speaker, 527s pose a great threat to our current democratic
process. Unfortunately, the House leadership will not give us a vote on
this important issue, so voters do not know who is behind the 30 second
TV ads trashing their candidates.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit
so that we can make the public aware of section 527s and the damage
that they are doing to our current political system.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is time we repealed
this outmoded and regressive tax. I hope we will make another change to
the Tax Code through the motion to recommit. Section 527 organizations
simply should disclose their contributors.
One of those organizations is called Citizens for Better Medicare,
though it is not really made up of citizens. It is funded with vast,
but undisclosed, sums from the pharmaceutical industry; and they run
ads to persuade Americans or try to persuade Americans that it is okay
to price prescription drugs at twice the level that they charge HMOs,
big hospitals, the Federal Government, Canadians, Mexicans, and the
rest of the world. Citizens for Better Medicare is a political
organization, it runs political ads that urges people to call your
Congressman. It has secret funds, and it spends some of its money
attacking the Canadian health care system.
Well, last year, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), during the
debate on campaign reform said what reform can restore accountability
more than an open book? It is incredible and baffling that we will not
support this motion to recommit today.
{time} 1415
We have a chance to require disclosure, to open the books and to let
the sunshine in on big money and politics.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the telephone excise tax repeal,
but I also rise to speak in favor of the motion to recommit.
It is really a sad day here when we have to bring up our only serious
discussion about campaign finance reform this way in this manner as a
motion to recommit. It is because of the latest abomination that has
crept into our political process, the so-called 527 corporations that
can accept unlimited contributions and spend it for political purposes
without disclosing at all where the money is coming from. For too long
opponents of campaign finance reform have claimed that the only thing
we need to do to reform campaign finances is to require full
disclosure. Well, here is their opportunity.
What is it going to take to enact long overdue campaign finance
reform in this Congress, illegalities of the magnitude not seen since
the Nixon administration, when the last wave of campaign finance reform
measures were finally enacted. I hope not.
Support the motion to recommit and let us shut down the 527 loophole,
as we are the excise tax today.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
(Mr. HILL of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the telephone
excise tax as well. This legislation will make telephone bills cheaper
and easier to understand. People in my district in southern Indiana
have told me they do not understand their telephone bills, the
confusing fees and surcharges on their phone bills. They do not know
why their bills are so high even when they make few or sometimes no
long distance calls.
I petitioned the Federal Communications Commission last fall to make
phone bills more fair. The laundry list of flat fees and taxes drive up
phone bill costs and confuses consumers. Today we, as Members of
Congress, have an opportunity to take an immediate step to lighten the
burden on consumers by supporting this bill. Eliminating this
unnecessary tax will be just the first step toward making phone fees
more fair and easy to understand.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just make the point again that this is a great
example of bipartisan legislation that has been so from the start that
has come to the floor after extensive discussion and hearings. We have
a broad-based coalition that is involved in this effort. It includes
the Hispanic business community. It includes the African American
business community. It includes, of course, consumer groups. It
includes telephone companies that now pay the administrative costs to
impose this tax.
It includes people who have been trying for years to get the Congress
to focus on this outdated tax that is actually a barrier to Internet
access and to the telecommunications revolution that this Congress is
trying to encourage rather than discourage. I would just hope that
maybe we could keep this discussion focused on that.
There will be a motion to recommit. I understand it is going to try
to connect some new issues to this that have
[[Page H3847]]
to do with campaign finance reform. We have heard a lot of the speakers
address that, and I appreciate the fact that they are supporting this
repeal which is long overdue; but I would also hope that when we do
bring a piece of bipartisan legislation to the floor, as the gentleman
from California (Mr. Matsui) and I have today, that we might as a
Congress respond to those very people on both sides of the aisle who
say, gee, we are so partisan around here, we can never get anything
done together, we can never move forward to do something for the
American people that is in their interest, I would hope some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle would listen to some of their
own words and perhaps respond accordingly, and that we could move
together without the kind of confusion and potentially partisan
acrimony that seems to be building with regard to this motion to
recommit and send something over to the Senate with a very strong
bipartisan signal that we feel strongly about this issue; we want to
get it done this year. We believe this is something we can do for all
of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we could all be here on this bipartisan
motion today, this bipartisan bill, and actually pass it on a
suspension. I do not see a great deal of controversy about what is
going on with the subject matter of this bill. The fact that I would
like to hear discussed in a bipartisan way is the motion to recommit.
I would ask the gentleman from Ohio why is it we do not hear anybody
in a bipartisan way from that side of the aisle talking about the
recommittal to have that go into effect and have that be bipartisan? We
need disclosure. 527s are, in fact, a blight on our election system. We
have heard Members on that side of the aisle talk for a long time about
how they want disclosure. The majority whip tells us he wants
disclosure. I would hope he would come to the floor and say that he
supports this in a bipartisan way.
The head of the conference has said that he supports disclosure. He
intends to raise a lot of money under 527s. Let us hear him come to the
floor and talk about how he wants to be bipartisan on this bill, and
then we can pass the subject bill which is virtually a no-brainer with
its regressive nature. At this point in time, we are spending an awful
lot of time reaching around slapping ourselves on the back. Let us do
something really heroic for the American people. Let us do something
that really gets to the serious part of business. Let us do something
for campaign finance reform and get rid of these 527s.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman would not yield to me, I will just
make a couple quick points. One is, if the gentleman is so interested
in disclosure, it would be awfully nice if in the context of this
telephone tax repeal, which is what we are talking about today, that
many of us have worked for months on, that the motion to recommit would
be disclosed to us.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I have not seen it.
No. Let me just make my own points, if I might.
Mr. DOGGETT. I would be glad to disclose it.
Mr. PORTMAN. Since no one yielded to me on the gentleman's side, I
will let the gentleman take his own time.
Second, I would make the point that if campaign finance reform is
going to be connected to every issue that comes up on the floor that is
bipartisan, that is constructive, that is something that is moving
America forward, then I think it is very easy for people who are
watching out there and other Members to think, gee, perhaps the folks
on that side of the aisle are trying to obstruct what goes on in this
Congress, are trying to make everything that is bipartisan into a
partisan issue, are trying to keep this Congress from getting its work
done and in fact helping the American people.
That is what this is all about today. This is an effort again that
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I, and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Becerra) and I, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen) and I, and many other Members of this conference and the
conference of the other side have worked on; and we are happy to
proceed with a debate on the telephone tax because we think it is the
right thing to do for the American people.
We are also eager to see the motion to recommit since the gentleman
is so concerned about disclosure, and it would be interesting to see
how it is tied in.
What I heard from the speaker earlier, although we do not have the
motion to recommit so we cannot see it, is that the gentleman was
interested in saying that he could tie this to, again, this
constructive effort to repeal an outdated tax by saying that if folks
do not disclose who are in certain kinds of organizations then they
would have to continue to pay the 3 percent telephone tax, which is an
interesting way to tie it in; and I must commend the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett) for his creativity. But I will say that I do not
think that does a whole lot; I do not think that is much of an
enforcement mechanism.
So if the gentleman is really trying to get something done, maybe he
ought to back up and go to his own Treasury Department in the Clinton
administration and say where is the report on political activities and
the appropriate tax structure of political activity that was due under
the 1998 IRS Restructuring Reform Act that we are still waiting for?
Where is that report?
Maybe the Treasury Department could help us because they are the
experts in this.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. They could give us some perspective on this. Is a 527
any different than a 501(c)(4) that is also doing advertising without
any proper disclosure?
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. Is a 527 different than a 501(c)(5)?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time is controlled by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, again I am happy to let the gentleman talk
on his own time. He did not yield to our side, and there is plenty of
time on the gentleman's side.
I would just say that it would be nice if in one day in this Congress
we could come together, join arms as Republicans and as Democrats, and
do something that is good for all of our constituents, which we have
done up to this point on this legislation, both in terms of the
subcommittee hearings, in terms of the committee hearings, the
committee markup, in terms of working with outside groups to come
together and bring people together, rather than making it a partisan
issue, rather than again raising issues that are going to confuse and
muddy the waters as we try to send a strong bipartisan signal to the
U.S. Senate and to the President that this phone tax is one we want to
repeal and we want to get it done this year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am greatly disappointed
that our friends across the aisle are not joining Senator John McCain,
who has shown great leadership in an attempt to close this loophole,
and are not joining us on this side of the aisle who want to close this
loophole.
Now here is why we should do this together: it is a fundamental tenet
of Americans' values that we like a fair fight. Americans like a fair
fight, and these 527 organizations are nothing more than secret
assassins. They are secret character assassins, and they assassinate
people on both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis.
With all due respect to the last speaker, we do not need any experts
from the Department of Treasury to tell us this. Look at 527. I have it
right here, that defines these terms. It says, the term exempt function
means the function of influencing or attempting to influence the
selection, nomination, election or appointment of any individual for
these offices.
[[Page H3848]]
These are born and bred to try to assassinate candidates, and yet the
public does not know who is doing the assassination. We have a
bipartisan interest in a fair fight. We ought to have a bipartisan
effort. The other side ought to join us in closing this loophole.
Americans are entitled to know where this money is coming from for
these back-handed secret assassinations.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the motion to
recommit from my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). What
we are trying to do here is condition tax relief that is in this bill
for 527 organizations on their making simple disclosure as to where
money comes from.
Now I understand that there are some people that think we should not
be doing this in this bill; we should have a campaign finance reform
bill to deal with 527s. We did, and we passed the bill and abuses have
continued.
Let me remind the Members how we got a vote on campaign finance
reform this year and in the last session. We walked over here, and we
signed discharge petitions, and we got attention from all over the
country from public interest groups. That is how we move campaign
finance reform on the floor.
Now what we are attempting to do here is look at how the Internal
Revenue Code defines a 527. It is an organization that accepts
contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing or
attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or
appointment of an individual to any Federal, State or local public
office.
By definition, these self-527s exist to influence elections, and yet
somehow opponents of reform insist that these ads funneled by these
organizations, that mention candidates' names, that criticize their
voting records, that are aired on the very heels of elections are not
subject to disclosure laws.
Now many of us debated campaign finance reform on the floor of this
House and many of the opponents of reform, I recall the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle) articulately coming down to this floor and
saying disclosure is what we need; any ads that are meant to influence
election, we should simply have disclosure.
What have we seen happen across the country over the last several
months? We have seen an explosion of these stealth 527s spending
literally millions of dollars; and we do not know, the public does not
know, where the money comes from.
This is not a partisan issue. Just look at what happened to Senator
McCain when his campaign started taking off across the country because
people wanted reform, because people wanted change. What happened?
Well, just as his campaign took off, these ads popped up questioning
his environmental record, precisely at the time when he faces key
primaries in New York and elsewhere. Was it just a coincidence that an
issue discussion on his environmental record seemed to take off exactly
when his candidacy was taking off? No, it was not a coincidence.
This is an abuse, an abuse of the campaign finance laws. If we do not
want to be partisan about it, we do not have to. Let us, both sides,
agree to disclose any of these 527s, disclose where the money comes
from.
{time} 1430
The problem is, under the law, they are not being disclosed. This is
an abuse of the system. The time for action is now. At a minimum, and
this motion to recommit by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is a
bare minimum, we should deny tax relief to 527s that do not disclose.
It is as simple as that. Let us deny the tax relief to those who will
not disclose.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I am going to be having a town
hall meeting in my district with Senator McCain. As my colleagues know,
I was one of the few that was willing to sign a discharge petition and
was right there from the beginning in the creation of our campaign
finance reform.
My support for campaign finance reform is based on a lot of reasons.
One, this issue is near and dear to me. I have been a victim of these
very unfair and hideous attacks that so-called independent groups can
do.
But my support for campaign finance reform is to bring back some
integrity to the electoral process. But sadly here today the issue of
bringing back integrity to the electoral process is being brought in as
a way to stop us or restrict us from bringing back integrity about this
Congress and about this government when it comes to taxation law.
Now, I have also been the original cosponsor of repealing this quite
unfair law, the law that said, oh, just let us tax a few rich people in
1898 for a little bit to pay for the Spanish American War and, and do
not worry, we will not tax the working class, and we will repeal it
after the war.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have got a choice tonight. We can play
partisan politics and try to take advantage of this issue of a
bipartisan bill. Democrats and Republicans have come together and said
this tax is wrong and it is immoral and the credibility of Congress is
being called in on this and that we need to set an example to the
American people that, when it comes to the laws of this Congress, that
when we say we are going to raise taxes for one purpose and for that
purpose, that when the purpose is over, eventually even if it is 100
years later, we will come back and eliminate that tax.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what we are saying today is that both of
us, both Democrats and Republicans, agree it is a credibility of our
taxation system that we repeal this tax.
I want to say something about this tax because I think that we hear
on the floor again and again the issue of class warfare. I think that
this tax is an example of the failed concept of trying to tell and
promise the American people that, do not worry, we are going to tax the
other guy. We are going to get them, but it will not get you.
Now, I come from a working-class community, and I have heard again
and again on this floor that, do not worry, we are only going to tax
the rich, as if the middle class is so stupid that they do not know
what goes around comes around; that the middle class always bears the
brunt and the burden of taxation. This tax is an example. In 1898, it
was focused only to the very wealthy; now it has gone around.
I am asking us, let us stop the partisan fighting. Quit tying to take
political advantage. We have a bill that both sides agree on. There is
no excuse except partisan advantage not to repeal this tax at this
time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
each side has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Portman) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
(Mr. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to repeal the tax. This is
truly bipartisan and should be bipartisan. But at the same time, I rise
in support of what should again be a bipartisan effort to support the
motion to recommitment. 527s would not get the benefit of the tax
repeal unless they disclose under the language of the recommittal
motion.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and I, and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is the person who proposed this 527
recommittal language, we are on each other's bills, have similar bills.
Earlier this week, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) of the
NRCC signed on my bill. Just yesterday, he removed his name from the
bill. I was overjoyed when he signed on, because I thought this at last
is an effort, an attempt, to move on a bipartisan basis, by Republicans
and Democrats, on what should be a nonpartisan issue, and that is full
disclosure.
I can understand, I can understand truly people having honest
differences of opinion about limitations on contributions. But I have
heard from my
[[Page H3849]]
colleagues on both sides of the aisle over and over, we may have
differences about limitations, but everybody agrees with full
disclosure.
Well, now we have a chance for full disclosure, and now is the time
to put one's vote where one's mouth is. It is that important to the
American people, because, frankly, secrecy threatens democracy. Secrecy
in government threatens our system of government and electoral process.
We can overcome this secrecy by opening up these records, by full
disclosure, and telling the people in this country who is trying to
influence Federal elections.
At the very bottom line, the people of this country deserve to know
who is trying to influence their votes, so when they make an informed
decision, when they make a decision to vote, they can make an informed
decision and cast an informed vote.
I think it is that vital that we act on a nonpartisan basis, and I
invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis) to support this motion to recommit for full
disclosure.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. Davis of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to highlight what the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) was referring to by the 527. A lot of
times, when an issue comes before Congress, we need to spend a
tremendous amount of time collecting information, conducting a hearing,
and then acting. But there are those issues that are so compelling and
fundamental, we need to act immediately. This is one of them. It is the
incredible loophole that is being exploited.
I think a lot of criticism has been directed at Republicans, but I
think the Democrats could easily succumb to this temptation one of
these days, too. So this is a problem that affects every American. It
should not have to be characterized as a Democrat or Republican issue.
The point is we should have disclosure.
I have sat in meetings where groups that attempt to influence this
process, which is their constitutional right to do so, said, do not
tell us to put our name on a political ad we want to advertise because
we will not run the kind of ads we want to run if our name has to be
put on them.
That is exactly the point. If one is not willing to stand up and
associate oneself publicly with a message one is sending to the
citizens of this country, one does not deserve the right to put
information out there. Because it is clear one is trying to distort and
mislead.
So what we are offering in our motion to recommit is a very simple
proposition. If one is going to engage in this type of political
advertising, there ought to be disclosure of where the money came from.
There ought to be disclosure for the good of the citizenry.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has
5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui)
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to close, so the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) may proceed, then I will close.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman) for his bipartisanship on the issue of the Federal excise tax
repeal. I certainly appreciate his leadership and his effort. Of
course, the majority and minority have worked very well on the issue of
the excise tax repeal, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, over 200 Members of this House of Representatives have
called for full disclosure by the new political superweapon of this
political season, the 527. The 527 is not some new type of aircraft,
but it is a superweapon designed to undermine the election process in
this election year.
Today is our only opportunity, not because we wanted an opportunity
like this today to be the vehicle for doing this, but because every
other opportunity has been denied.
Our colleagues say that they are surprised and that they did not know
about this. Well, they were not surprised when I asked every one of
them, even the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to join as a cosponsor
with over 200 other Members in support of the Underground Campaign
Disclosure Act. This legislation would require these groups to open
their records, disclose their donors, and engage in a fair fight like
everyone else.
Last year, they stood here on the floor of this Congress after they
tried for months to block the efforts of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays). They stood here, and they fought those efforts by saying that
it is unconstitutional. They said the only thing that would be
constitutional was disclosure. Now, I read from the chairman of the
Republican Campaign Committee in this morning's newspaper he thinks
disclosure is unconstitutional.
What they think is that anything that would be a genuine reform of
the corrupt campaign finance system that we have today in America is
unconstitutional or any other excuse that they can come up with.
We have pled with our Republican colleagues to join with us in a
bipartisan effort. We have offered other opportunities for them to
participate, such as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, to give the taxpayers
the right to know what is happening with this subsidized activity.
But they have reached the conclusion that they cannot keep their
power in this Congress, and their power over the American people, if
they operate in the open. It is essential to them that they begin--and
they have already begun--a program of political character assassination
where the gun for the political assassination is pointed and the
bullets are paid for, but we do not know who paid for them.
That is the whole idea. One can take corporate money, one can take
Iraqi money, one can take Cuban money, one can take any brand of money
one wants and no one will ever find out.
The reason they will not engage us in debate today is they have
nothing to engage us with. They know they are wrong. They are afraid.
That is why they have previously blocked us from coming to this floor
after telling us we would have an open opportunity to debate the issue.
They are afraid to debate the issue of why they have to rely on secret
money. They know it is wrong. They absolutely know it is wrong to
pollute the political process of America with hidden money. They are a
big standard barrier for reform.
A great man from Arizona has said this is the latest indication of
the corruption of the American political system. He has joined in a
bipartisan effort with Members in the other body to reform this system.
We cannot even get a fair vote on the floor of this House.
So we must rely on a motion to recommit to deny these 527
organizations the opportunity to get the telephone tax cut that is
being proposed here today.
Let me make it clear to my colleague from California who talks about
bipartisanship. This motion to recommit is not going to delay the
approval of this telephone tax repeal by one second. As soon as this
motion to recommit is approved, it will join my amendment with this
bill, we will repeal the tax, and, at the same time, we will get a
little equity for the people of America and a little openness in our
democracy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui)
still has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by returning the compliment to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). It has been a pleasure to work
with him. I also want to commend him for his efforts yesterday, not so
much the victory of normalizing trade relations with China, the world's
most populous country, but rather the way in which he went about it. It
was a bipartisan vote. I think it was a good and informed debate,
profound debate on the floor of this House yesterday.
[[Page H3850]]
I have got to say today's debate has been disappointing, because it
has not been about the topic at hand, which is tax policy, which is
specifically this Congress finally, after 102 years, coming to grips
with the telephone excise tax that was put in place as a temporary
luxury tax to fund the Spanish American War that has continued to
burden our consumers, and today is actually a burden and a barrier to
telecommunications, which is the point of the debate today.
I want to tell my colleague that I was informed by the staff some
time ago during this debate that the parliamentarians had informed them
that I could raise a point of order to say that the speakers on this
debate would have to keep their comments within the subject matter,
which is the telephone tax, and not campaign finance reform. I chose
not to do that, because I did not want to close down debate
unnecessarily. We did try on our side.
We beseeched our colleagues on this side to try to keep it on the
issue, because this is a great issue in the sense that Republicans and
Democrats came together to try to solve a very real problem to move our
country forward, in this case, to repeal an outdated telephone tax that
is a burden on our economy and it particularly burdens low-income
families.
{time} 1445
We hear a lot from the other side of the aisle about how various
Republican tax proposals are not properly distributed across the
economy so that they really impact the poorest among us. Ninety-four
percent of America's families have telephones. So we are talking about
getting rid of a tax every one of those families pay every month on
their phone bill. It is a disproportionate burden on the budgets of the
lowest-income families in our country. It is a disproportionate burden
on our seniors in this country who rely on telephones. It really is a
lifeline for their everyday communication with the outside world.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has pointed out a
number of times, this is also a tax that, frankly, is very difficult to
impose now because of new technology, because of the difficulty of
deciding what in fact is appropriate to have the telephone tax attached
to in the new world of modern telecommunications.
So I am sorry we did not have a better debate today on the issue
before us. With regard to the comments of my colleague from Texas on
the Committee on Ways and Means, I am sorry he had to put a partisan
spin on the debate before us. I disagree with what he said. I do not
think we can draw a line through this Chamber through the middle and
say, gee, all Republicans are against this, all Democrats are for that.
I do not think we can castigate Republicans for being against reform.
We are for reform. I myself put in a campaign finance reform bill every
session I have been here.
I believe in disclosure, as do my colleagues. We also believe in
doing it the right way, and not a telephone tax bill; not with regard
to one narrow piece of legislation; not without the proper information,
as I said earlier from the Treasury Department of the Clinton
administration, which is way overdue on its report to us on this very
topic.
Let us do this in a smart way. Let us do it in a way that is
comprehensive, so that whether we are called a 527 or a 501(c)4 or 5,
or whatever number is attached to a candidate, they are treated the
same way, with the same principle, which is that that candidate should
have to disclose the sources of their donations. I applaud my colleague
from Massachusetts because he has done that in a comprehensive way in
his campaign reform proposal.
But today is a cynical partisan attempt. Again, it is disappointing
to me, because I thought in this case we had something we could come
together with as Republicans and Democrats and do for our constituents
in a positive way. At the end of the day, we will. We will. We will be
able, I think today, by sending such a strong message from this House
on a bipartisan basis to move forward a repeal of a tax that probably
should have been repealed 101 years ago, a tax on everybody's telephone
use.
I would just make one final comment, and that is that when we talk
about civility in this Chamber, when we talk about how to work in a
bipartisan way, when we talk about how we can move legislation forward
that all of our constituents care about, I think it is important we
begin to cultivate certain kinds of approaches and certain kinds of
Members and a certain approach to issues. And I would ask my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, and on both sides of the aisle, to look
into their hearts and say is this the way we want to proceed? Is this
what is going to encourage civility and encourage moving us ahead as a
country in this Congress? Even in an election year, colleagues, we
should be able to get together and do the right thing for other
constituents.
I think we will do that today. I strongly encourage my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to join us in finally repealing this tax,
joining the telecommunications revolution of this century and repealing
a tax from the end of the 19th century.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3916, ``The
Telephone Excise Repeal Act''. I am proud to be an original cosponsor
of this overdue piece of legislation. The Spanish-American War is over
and so should this tax which was imposed on talking to fund the 1898
war. This tax is a ``tax on talking.'' It has been extended, lowered,
increased and temporarily repealed but yet it continues to exist today.
This 102-year-old tax affects telephone service, cellular phone service
and access to the Internet.
Americans work very hard in this country. It is unfair to impose an
additional burden on these hard working Americans by requiring them to
pay a tax that was implemented to fund a war that has been over for at
least a century.
H.R. 3916 will eventually eliminate the 3-percent Federal excise tax
on telecommunications services. A 1-percent reduction will occur each
year for the next 3 years, allowing the telephone excise tax to be
fully repealed by October 1, 2002.
H.R. 3916 repeals an antiquated tax that hurts many American families
and small businesses. This unsubstantiated telephone excise tax clearly
violates our economic principles. When it was implemented in 1898, it
was considered a luxury tax. I guess access to a telephone in 1898 was
considered a luxury. Today, access to a telephone is a necessity. The
repeal will encourage growth in telecommunication services and will
give all Americans a tax break on their phone bill. This excise tax
does absolutely nothing to promote the use of phone service. It merely
goes into the government's general revenue account to be spent on
anything the government desires. There is absolutely no economic or
social justification for this outdated tax.
When I was elected to represent the second district of Nebraska, I
maintained two priorities: one, was to fight any and all attempts by
the Federal Government to take more money away from Nebraskans; and
two, let Nebraskans keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their
paychecks. Nearly 40 percent of the average American family's income
goes toward taxes. We need to give Americans a tax break. Now is the
time to eliminate the telephone excise tax. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. President, I rise to take this opportunity to thank
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, and the chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, Mr. Archer, for bringing H.R. 3916, the Telephone
Excise Tax Repeal Act, to the floor today.
On February 16, 1898, the Federal Government enacted a temporary
excise tax on telephone service to fund the Spanish American War.
Although the war lasted just under 6 months, the Federal excise tax
created to fund it, is still in effect over 100 years later, forcing
consumers to continue to pay this tax on all their telephone services.
The Federal excise tax on phone service has long outlived its purpose
and relevance. It is a regressive tax that is inappropriate in today's
world where the telephone is not a luxury but a practical necessity.
The Federal excise tax is a tax that discourages communications in a
world that is becoming more and more dependent upon technology and
communications. It disproportionately hurts the indigent, particularly
those households on either fixed or limited incomes, and rural
customers, because they have higher phone bills on average, due to
comparatively more long distance calling. The Federal excise tax is
essentially a tax that discourages communications.
H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act, would eliminate the
3-percent Federal excise tax on telecommunications services phasing in
a complete repeal of the tax over the next 3 years. A 1-percent
reduction will occur each year for the next 3 years, allowing the tax
to be fully repealed by October 1, 2002.
The removal of the Federal excise tax on consumers phone bills will
immediately lower consumer phone bills, saving American consumers over
$5 billion a year. Accordingly, I
[[Page H3851]]
urge our colleagues to join us in repealing this antiquated ``tax on
talking,'' by supporting H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal
Act.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues, Mr. Portman and Mr.
Matsui, and support H.R. 3916, the Phone Tax Repeal Act. In 1898,
Congress approved a ``temporary'' tax of one cent on long distance
phone calls, as a way of funding the Spanish-American War. When this
tax was implemented, there were only about 1,300 phones in America.
Today, more than 94 percent of American households have at least one
phone, not to mention multiple phone lines or celluar phones.
The Spanish-American War ended that same year, but the ``temporary''
tax still exists. Currently, anyone who makes a phone call or uses a
phone line to dial up to the Internet pays a 3-percent Federal excise
tax on that call. Low-income families, senior citizens, and anyone else
on a fixed income are especially burdened by this tax. They should not
have to spend their hard-earned money on a useless and outdated tax.
Telephones, and other telecommunication technologies, have become a
necessity in today's world. They are no longer a luxury enjoyed only by
a privileged few. To tax necessities such as these, especially when we
have a surplus, is unfair, repressive, and senseless.
This legislation would have a real and beneficial effect. Families
would see an immediate reduction in their phone bill once the tax is
repealed, giving them more money to spend as they, and not the Federal
Government, see fit.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Americans have put
up with this outdated tax for too long. It is time to permanently
repeal this not-so-temporary tax.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support
of repealing the grossly outdated Spanish-American War phone tax. The
3-percent Federal excise tax on phone calls that was created in 1898 to
pay for the Spanish-American War. At that time, it was called a
``temporary'' tax.
Parents have to pay the tax every time their child calls home collect
from college; grandparents pay it when they call their grandchildren;
and sons and daughters pay it every time they call their mom on
Mother's Day.
This ``tax on talking,'' is a regressive tax, that unfairly adds to
the tax burden of hard-working Americans.
It also demonstrates how hard it is for the government to end a tax.
Even though the Spanish-American War has been over for a century, and I
have been assured that the Spanish threat has ended, the Federal
Government has continued to collect this tax.
President Ronald Reagan said, ``Government does not tax to get the
money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.''
It has taken a Republican Congress to find the courage to curb the
growth of spending, balance the budget, and to continue to reduce the
tax-bite on hard working American families. The Republican House is
poised to repeal this unfair, regressive tax, but the latest reports
from the Clinton-Gore administration indicate that they want to
continue to make Americans pay it.
Reagan was right, ``government always finds a need for the money it
gets.''
Vote ``yes'' on this bill. The Spanish-American War is over.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DOGGETT. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Doggett moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3916 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 6, after line 11 (at the end of section 1(d)), add the
following new paragraph:
(3) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to bills
rendered to an organization described in section 527 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 unless that organization elects
to make the disclosures within the reporting requirements in
the Internal Revenue Code contemplated by the bill H.R. 4168
of the 106th Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who has been a part
of the effort to get a discharge petition so that we can take up,
through regular order but has thus far been blocked, this whole issue
of the 527 stealth PACs.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and as I have been listening to the debate, I have found it
interesting that people would be talking about why are we mucking up
this bill with this nonrelated issue. There is a pretty simple answer
to that question.
If we only allowed the regular legislative process to work, we would
not have to do this. But remember, when we had the Shays-Meehan bill on
the floor, opponent after opponent after opponent of the bill came
forward and said, all we really need to do is to have disclosure. That
is what this is all about.
I would hope that the majority would finally agree to allow a simple
disclosure bill, the bill of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore). All
we are trying to say is, the 527s should not promote secrecy. Money is
going to be spent in politics. What we are saying is it should not be
spent in secrecy. We ought to shine the good sunshine and let the
people know who is spending how much money in political races.
This being our only opportunity, I commend the gentleman from Austin
for coming up with a very innovative amendment today. This will give us
a clear up or down vote on whether we are for it or whether we are
against it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who has led this House in the effort to get
campaign finance reform through a number of sessions, and who I am
pleased to have support this motion to recommit.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) not only for his motion to recommit, but his commitment to
this issue, as well as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who has
done great work on this.
What we are trying to do here is to get Members from both sides of
the aisle to come together and at least say we are not going to give
this tax break to those 527s.
Now, I do not know why anyone would be confused or puzzled or
nonplussed as to why we would use any opportunity in the rules to bring
this to the attention of the Members. We cannot get a vote up or down
on this. This is an abuse of the campaign finance law that we are
seeing every day abused. This is our opportunity to do something about
it.
It is not good enough for Members to say we are all for disclosure.
Talking the talk is not good enough. Walking the walk is what is
required. In this instance, there are 527s that will not disclose where
the money comes from, and it is our responsibility to make sure that
they do, and that is why we need to pass this law and pass it now.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen), who has been already a victim of these 527 stealth
PAC attacks.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The gentleman from Ohio was saying earlier this is a partisan effort.
Well, there is no reason why this should be a partisan effort. It is
our democracy that is at stake. Republicans and Democrats have a stake
in restoring some credibility to this system, and we cannot have that
credibility, we will not gain that respect unless we have full
disclosures for these stealth organizations, these section 527
organizations, that are out there raising unlimited amounts of money
with no accountability, no disclosure.
If it is a fundamental principle on the other side that they want
disclosure, this motion to recommit will give it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore), who is a large man in stature but gentle in
personality; and I
[[Page H3852]]
am convinced that contrary to today's Roll Call, he did not jump anyone
on the floor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), or anyone else
concerning this bill.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say today that this is not a
Democratic idea, this is not a Republican idea, this is an idea that is
good for the American people, and this should be the law in our
country, and that is full disclosure.
As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) pointed out, we are
not here to try to abuse anybody; we are just asking for an opportunity
for an up or down vote on this proposition of full disclosure.
The people in this country are cynical about our form of government,
about our electoral laws, because they see scandal after scandal about
campaign finance fund raising. We can get people enthused about our
government again, we can get people excited about the opportunity to
participate in our democracy if we will only go with this proposition
of full disclosure and tell the people in this country who is trying to
influence their votes so, again, they can make an informed decision
when they cast their ballot.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is not only linked to this
telephone tax; it is linked to everything that is happening in this
building and throughout this country.
The gentleman challenged me to look into my heart, and I will do
that. I look into my heart, and I think of the seniors who are out
there who are forced to choose between getting a prescription and
buying food. I see a pharmaceutical company that can dump unlimited
amounts--millions of dollars--into attack ads, as they have done
against the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and other Members of this
body.
I look into my heart, and I see the problems of public health; and
yet I know the tobacco companies are dumping millions of dollars of
undisclosed money to assassinate the character of those who would do
something about it.
I look into my heart, and I think about those who are getting managed
right out of their health care and cannot get the health care they
need, and I know the managed care companies are dumping millions of
dollars into these campaigns to be sure this Congress does nothing
about that or any of the other issues I have mentioned.
And perhaps even more importantly, I think of the schoolchildren of
this country. They cannot even get their agenda up in the Congress
because they do not have a 527. That is what I see when I look into my
heart.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say this: I am tired of people coming to
this Congress and being hammered into giving money to secret stealth
organizations and then having their cohorts come out and say, we will
duck, dodge, twist, and turn, but just do not make us do anything about
it this year. Wait until we have left the House. Then, maybe 100 years
from now, like this tax we are repealing, we will get around to doing
something about it.
The American people demand reform now and this is our one
opportunity. I challenge my Republican colleagues to buck their
leadership. They know we are right; that is why they have not been out
here speaking against it. They know the American people deserve full
disclosure for a complete democracy. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of
the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Houghton) oppose the motion to recommit?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to crank this thing down to a little lower
level of intensity. I do not know why we are having this discussion,
anyway. We all want illumination. We do not want to have people hiding
behind 527s or 501(c)3s, or 4s or 5s or 6s. No one wants that. It is
just the process we are going through. And we want to do it right, so
it is right by not only us but also the American people.
Two years ago in the IRS reform bill we directed the Joint Committee
on Taxation and also the Treasury Department to report to the Congress
by January. The joint committee report was completed on time, the
treasury report was not. At the request of my boss, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Archer), I have been working for several weeks to develop a
meaningful, sound and responsive package of proposals to expand the
disclosure by tax exempt organizations, and work on that package is
well underway.
{time} 1500
I hope we will complete it relatively soon. We have been working all
day on this thing. We worked yesterday. We will be working tomorrow on
into next week. I would like to feel that when this is completed it
will satisfy many of the things which the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) is interested in.
But the point is we are still hearing, and we are waiting to hear
from the Treasury Department. Earlier today, the Treasury passed on the
opportunity to tell the Committee on Ways and Means when we are going
to hear from them. It is really unfortunate that the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett) continues to insist on consideration of the limited
aspect of political activities by tax exempt without insisting on
guidance of from the administration.
Let me be clear. The administration's report was mandated by law. We
do not have it. We are waiting for it. We do not have it. My friend
accuses us of stalling, and I wonder whether this is not the pyromaniac
posing as the firefighter.
Today we are considering repeal of the telephone tax, which was
enacted even before I was born, which is a long time ago. That proposal
has broad bipartisan support and has been fully considered. The same
cannot be said, I am afraid, of the proposal of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Today I have got to say in my heart, he talks about his heart, I will
talk about my heart, is not the time and not the place for this debate.
I wish to assure my colleagues on the other side and on this side that
there will be an opportunity for full consideration of the important
issues raised by my colleague from Texas. We are getting at it. We are
trying to do it. We are trying to get that report out of the Treasury.
And as soon as it comes, maybe even before it comes, we are going to
have a suggestion here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, for yielding
me the time; and I appreciate his words as to his commitment to doing a
thorough investigation of the issue of disclosure, not just 527s but
all of the tax-related committees, including the 501s.
I do have a copy of the motion to recommit now. I appreciate, with
all the talk about disclosure, that it was disclosed to us several
minutes ago. I have looked at it. I would just make two very simple
points.
One is, it has nothing to do with the bill before us, which is repeal
of a 102-year-old telephone excise tax. That is what is before this
Congress.
Again, I want to applaud my friends on the other side of the aisle
for working with us together in a bipartisan fashion to finally put an
end to this Spanish-American War tax as we go into the 21st century and
which is a barrier to telecommunications and an unfair tax that should
have been repealed a long time ago. It was put in as a temporary tax
and a temporary luxury tax at that. Finally we are getting rid of it.
Second, I will say, having looked at this, it is a very interesting
motion to recommit. It, basically, says that 527 corporations could
continue not to disclose anything so long as they agree to continue
paying a 3 percent Federal excise tax. So it is a clever way to attach
it to the legislation at hand in order to avoid, I suppose, the
germaneness problems that the parliamentarian would otherwise raise or
we would raise and he would confirm. But it is not a very strong
enforcement mechanism.
I would say, if the gentleman is serious about it, he ought to go
back to the drawing board, work with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Houghton), work with others who want to put
[[Page H3853]]
this together in a strong bipartisan way to come up with legislation
that makes sense in a comprehensive way to deal with this real problem
in a real comprehensive way.
So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if they
want to get something done for the American people, vote for the repeal
of the telephone tax. If they want to do it in a clean way that sends a
strong message that does not involve partisan political politics with
what should be a very straight forward and a very important
constructive step by this Congress, vote ``no'' on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DOGGETT. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208,
nays 214, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 232]
YEAS--208
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
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
Leach
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
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
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
NAYS--214
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
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
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
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
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)
NOT VOTING--13
Bateman
Clay
Coburn
Davis (FL)
Kennedy
McInnis
Meek (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Spence
Weiner
{time} 1522
Messrs. METCALF, EVERETT, TANCREDO, LAZIO and SIMPSON changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420,
noes 2, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 233]
AYES--420
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
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
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
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
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
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
[[Page H3854]]
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
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.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
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
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
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
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
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
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--2
Murtha
Stark
NOT VOTING--13
Bateman
Clay
Coburn
Kennedy
McInnis
Meek (FL)
Minge
Ortiz
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Spence
Vento
Weiner
{time} 1534
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to family commitments in Colorado, I
was unable to vote on final passage of the following bill, H.R. 3916.
Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 233, I was unavoidably
detained. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 233.
____________________